A test stand for the evaluation of high efficiency mist eliminators

Giffin, P.K.; Parsons, M.S.; Waggoner, C.A.

Review of Scientific Instruments 83(10): 105107

2012

dedicated to the experimental investigation of both common and complex mesh pads and to the development of reliable design

REVIEW
OF
SCIENTIFIC
INSTRUMENTS
83,
105107
(2012)
A
test
stand
for
the
evaluation
of
high
efficiency
mist
eliminators
Paxton
K.
Giffin,a
)
Michael
S.
Parsons,
and
Charles
A.
Waggoner
Institute
for
Clean
Energy
Technology,
Mississippi
State
University,
205
Research
Blvd,
Starkville,
Mississippi
39759,
USA
(Received
12
June
2012;
accepted
19
September
2012;
published
online
11
October
2012)
High
efficiency
mist
eliminators
(HEME)
are
airstream
filtering
elements
primarily
used
to
remove
liquid
and
solid
aerosols.
HEME
elements
are
designed
to
reduce
aerosol
load
on
downstream
high
efficiency
particulate
air
filters
and
to
have
a
liquid
particle
removal
efficiency
of
99.5%
for
aerosols
as
small
as
1µm
in
size.
The
test
stand
described
herein
is
designed
to
evaluate
the
loading
capacity
and
filtering
efficiency
of
a
single
HEME
element.
The
loading
capacity
was
determined
with
or
without
use
of
a
water
spray
cleaning
system
to
wash
the
interior
surface
of
the
element.
The
HEME
element
is
challenged
with
a
liquid
waste
surrogate
using
Laskin
nozzles
and
large
dispersion
nozzles.
The
waste
surrogate
used
was
a
highly
caustic
solution
with
both
suspended
and
dissolved
solids
representative
of
actual
exposures
at
mixed,
hazardous,
and
radiological,
waste
treatment
facilities.
The
filtering
efficiency
performance
was
determined
by
challenging
the
element
with
a
dried
waste
surrogate
aerosol
and
di-octyl
phthalate
intermittently
during
the
loading
process.
Capabilities
of
the
test
stand
and
representative
results
obtained
during
testing
are
presented.
©
2012
American
Institute
of
Physics.
[http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4757581]
I.
INTRODUCTION
High
efficiency
mist
eliminators
(HEME)
are
filtering
elements
primarily
used
to
remove
liquid
aerosols
from
an
airstream.
HEME
elements
are
designed
to
have
a
liquid
par-
ticle
removal
efficiency
of
99.5%
for
aerosols
as
small
as
1
p,m
in
size.
1
These
elements
are
commonly
used
to
re-
move
aerosols
from
off-gas
systems
at
mixed
waste
treat-
ment
facilities.
A
lack
of
performance
data
presents
an
is-
sue
with
these
units.
Some
assumptions
need
to
be
verified.
One
such
verification
needed
is
determining
the
loading
ca-
pacity.
The
HEME
elements
are
assumed
to
have
a
high
load-
ing
capacity
because
they
are
typically
continuously
misted
and
intermittently
flushed
with
a
water
spray
that
reduces
the
buildup
of
particle
deposits.
The
impact
of
an
inopera-
ble
water
spray
system
is
another
item
that
requires
investiga-
tion.
The
effect
of
an
inoperable
water
spray
on
the
loading
capacity
is
unknown.
It
is
suspected
that
without
the
water
spray,
the
HEME
filters
will
experience
rapid
buildup
of
solid
aerosols
which
will
greatly
reduce
the
particle
load-
ing
capacity
of
the
element.
The
test
stand
presented
is
de-
signed
to
evaluate
the
loading
capacity
and
filtering
efficiency
of
HEME
elements.
The
loading
capacity
of
a
HEME
ele-
ment
can
be
determined
both
with
and
without
the
use
of
a
wash
down
procedure.
The
representative
test
results
il-
lustrate
the
effects
of
challenging
a
HEME
element
with
a
highly
caustic
hazardous
waste
surrogate.
The
surrogate
is
dispersed
using
both
Laskin
type
and
typical
atomizing
spray
nozzles.
The
filtering
efficiency
(FE)
of
the
element
was
deter-
mined
using
a
dried
waste
surrogate
and/or
di-octyl
phthalate
(DOP).
The
following
tests
display
the
capabilities
of
the
test
equipment.
0
Author
to
whom
correspondence
should
be
addressed.
Electronic
mail:
Giffin@
icet.msstate.edu
.
A.
Previous
testing
Filtration
research
at
ICET
began
in
2001
with
the
DOE
sponsored
high
efficiency
particulate
air
(HEPA)
Filter
Monitoring
Project.
The
research
evaluated
filters
based
on
the
American
Society
of
Mechanical
Engineers
(ASME)
Code
on
Nuclear
Air
and
Gas
Treatment
(AG-1).
2
Section
FC
filter
units.
Previous
studies
of
square
0.3
m
x
0.3
m
x
0.29
m
(12
in.
x
12
in.
x
11.5
in.)
HEPA
filters
have
inves-
tigated
moisture
failure,
source
term
loading,
seal
and
pinhole
leaks,
and
media
velocity.
Details
related
to
design,
construc-
tion,
and
operation
of
the
test
stand
utilized
in
these
research
efforts
have
been
published.
3
Discussions
of
the
experimental
design
related
to
these
research
efforts
have
been
presented
at
several
conferences
and
published.
4
These
discussions
in-
clude
aerosol
generation,
types
of
filters
tested,
and
aerosol
measurement
instrumentation
utilized.
Further
studies
conducted
by
ICET
include
lifecycle
test-
ing
of
HEPA
filters
under
both
ambient
and
elevated
condi-
tions.
These tests
were
conducted
on
ASME
AG-1
Section
FK
radial
flow
representative
filters
with
both
safe
and
re-
mote
change
filter
designs.
Ambient
condition
testing
was
performed
at
21.1
°C-26.7
°C
(70
°F-80
°F)
and
40%-60%
relative
humidity
(RH),
while
the
elevated
condition
testing
occurred
at
54.4
°C
(130
°F)
and
50%
RH
or
greater.
B.
Test
stand
performance
and
data
quality
requirements
The
test
stand
must
be
capable
of
challenging
the
HEME
elements
with
a
variety
of
test
conditions
to
provide
relevant
results.
To
test
different
element
designs
at
different
media
ve-
locities,
the
test
stand
needs
flexibility
in
its
volumetric
flow
rate
capabilities.
These
capabilities
include
the
ability
to
mon-
itor
airstream
temperature
and
relative
humidity.
A
wide
va-
riety
of
wet
and
dry
aerosol
challenge
agents
are
available.
0034-6748/2012/83(10)/105107/12/$30.00
83,
105107-1
©
2012
American
Institute
of
Physics
105107-2
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
TABLE
I.
Performance
capabilities
of
the
test
stand.
Volumetric
flow
rate
0.7-7.1
m
3
/min
Filter
differential
pressure
0-7.5
kPa
Relative
humidity
50-99+%
Mass
loading
rate
(dry)
200-600
mg/m
3
The
challenge
aerosol
during
the
filtering
efficiency
determi-
nation
should
be
polydisperse
as
to
indicate
the
overall
effi-
ciency
and
the
most
penetrating
particle
size
(MPPS).
Table
I
summarizes
the
test
stand
performance
capabilities.
The
test
stand
is
designed
to
determine
the
particle
load-
ing
capacity
and
filtering
efficiency
of
the
HEME
elements
with
or
without
a
wash
down
cleaning
system.
The
ICET's
small-scale
HEPA
test
stand
was
retrofitted
to
facilitate
these
tests.
This
test
stand
was
previously
used
for
the
aforemen-
tioned
HEPA
filter
monitoring
project.
The
HEME
elements
tested
measured
0.6
m
(24
in.)
in
length
and
0.46
m
(18
in.)
in
outer
diameter,
with
approximately
0.05
m
(2
in.)
of
me-
dia
thickness.
The
test
stand
housing
can
accommodate
small
variations
in
the
length,
inner
diameter,
or
outer
diameter
of
the
design.
Images
of
a
clean
HEME
element
prior
to
testing
are
displayed
in
Figure
1.
Sensors
installed
in
the
test
stand
are
used
to
evalu-
ate
temperature,
relative
humidity,
static
pressure,
differential
pressure,
and
volumetric
air
flow
rate
during
testing.
This
in-
formation
is
used
to
monitor
test
conditions.
This
information
is
also
recorded
in
the
test
stand
computer
for
post-test
analy-
sis.
Aerosol
measurement
instruments
are
used
upstream
and
downstream
of
the
test
element
to
determine
mass
loading
rate,
particle
size
distribution
(PSD),
particle
concentration,
and
the
MPPS.
The
instruments
used
in
this
study
are
capable
of
measuring
particle
sizes
from
20
nm
to
20
p,m.
The
instru-
ments
are
also
able
to
measure
the
particle
concentrations
up
to
10
6
particles
per
cm
3
upstream
and
less
than
1
particle
per
cm
3
downstream.
Data
for
the
evaluation
of
performance
parameters
for
confinement
ventilation
systems
are
typically
generated
un-
der
the
direction
of
a
formal
test
plan.
The
test
plan
can
be
subjected
to
a
technical
peer
review
and
data
quality
require-
ments.
Typical
quality
requirements
for
confinement
ventila-
tion
systems
for
mixed
waste
applications
are
identified
in
the
ASME
NQA-1
standard.
5
Research
activities
also
use
the
ANSI/ASQ
Z1.13-1000
6
as
an
equivalent
to
the
NQA-1
stan-
dard.
Research
activities
conducted
under
these
standards
are
•
r.
f.
A
F
i
(a)
(b)
HG.
1.
Images
of
the
HEME
exterior
(a)
and
interior
(b).
subject
to
a
quality
audit
in
which
a
peer
review
panel
com-
prises
industrial
and
academic
experts
in
aerosol
technology
and
filtration
would
conduct
on-site
review
of
the
project
at
start-up,
periodically
during
testing,
and
of
the
final
results.
Procedures
and
protocols
are
in
place
to
assure
these
quality
requirements
are
met.
All
test
stand
and
particle
measurement
instrumentation
must
be
kept
within
calibration
(see
Table
II).
Specific
protocols
exist
to
ensure
proper
handling
of
the
collected
data.
First,
all
computers
used
for
data
acquisition
and
reduction
are
non-networked
and
have
no
internet
con-
nections.
Next,
all
activities
are
logged
in
lab
notebooks
by
qualified
personnel
only.
Finally,
the
data
are
made
available
on
a
secure
secondary
server
for
the
project
team
and
peer
reviewers
to
examine.
The
representative
data
presented
are
results
from
two
tests
on
different
HEME
elements.
Both
are
loading
tests
with
intermittent
filtering
efficiency
evaluations.
One
test
is
con-
ducted
with
and
one
test
conducted
without
the
use
of
inter-
mittent
water
spray.
Data
sets
contain
continuously
recorded
values
for
differential
pressure,
differential
temperature,
test
air
stream
temperature,
test
volumetric
flow
rate,
and
test
air
stream
RH
versus
time.
The
important
aspects
of
the
test
with
a
water
spray
are
the
particulate
removal
and
the
effect
of
re-
peated
washings
on
the
FE
of
the
filter.
II.
TEST
STAND
A.
Components
Figure
2
presents
a
detailed
schematic
of
the
test
stand
designed
and
constructed
by
ICET
for
the
evaluation
of
the
HEME
elements.
Figure
3
features
a
photograph
of
the
test
stand.
Design
criteria
for
the
test
stand
include
the
capabili-
ties
to
evaluate
a
single
HEME
element
at
a
standard
flow
of
0.7-7.1
m
3
/min
(25-250
scfm),
a
maximum
differential
pres-
sure
(dP)
of
7.5
kPa
(30
in.
w.c.),
and
up
to
99+%
RH.
The
major
components
of
the
HEME
test
stand
are
identified
in
Figure
2.
The
housing
for
the
HEME
elements
was
constructed
in-
house
by
ICET
using
0.6
m
(24
in.)
stainless
steel
pipe.
The
upper
and
lower
sections
of
the
HEME
housing
are
joined
by
0.6
m
(24
in.)
flanges
with
a
tube
sheet
secured
between
them.
The
HEME
element
is
secured
to
the
tube
sheet
by
all-thread
TABLE
II.
Particle
measurement
instrumentation
and
specifications.
Particle
size
distribution
Instruments
and
methodology
#/cc
(min)
#/cc
(max)
(gm)
SMPS
(CPC,
EC,
and
35
cm
DMA)
1 1
x
io
7
0.01-0.675
SMPS
(CPC,
EC,
and
95
cm
DMA)
1 1
x
io
7
0.01-0.523
APS
1 1
x
io
3
0.5-20
105107-3
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
Air
Intake
Pork
(28)
HEME
Housing
Downstream
Measurement
Section
HEM
E
Inside
of
Housing
Downstream
HEPA
NVet
Aerosol
Generator
Upstream
Sampling
Ports
(2)
Water
Ipjection
Port
•
Venturi
Dry
Aerosol
Generator
To
Fan
HG.
2.
CAD
drawing
of
the
test
stand
indicating
components; part
B
also
includes
an
inset
of
a
CAD
drawing
of
the
HEME
inside
the
housing
attached
to
the
tube
sheet.
stainless
steel
rods
connecting
a
steel
top
plate
on
the
element
to
the
tube
sheet.
The
inset
of
Figure
2
features
a
drawing
of
the
tube
sheet
and
top
plate
without
(left)
and
with
(right)
a
HEME
element.
The
upstream
section
of
the
test
stand
consists
of
the
aerosol
generation
chamber,
the
transition,
and
the
lower
housing
section.
The
lower,
upstream,
housing
section
has
three
0.076
m
(3
in.)
ports
for
upstream
aerosol
sampling.
In
the
upstream
portion
of
the
housing,
a
port
is
available
for
injecting
the
dried
waste
surrogate
and
DOP
for
FE
evalua-
tion.
The
downstream
aerosol
measurement
section
of
the
test
stand,
fabricated
from
0.15
m
(6
in.)
PVC
pipe,
is
equipped
with
three
0.076
m
(3
in.)
ports
for
downstream
sampling.
A
0.3
m
x
0.3
m
x
0.29
m
(12
in.
x
12
in.
x
11.5
in.)
HEPA
filter
is
used
downstream
of
the
HEME
element
to
protect
the
venturi
used
for
controlling
test
stand
flow
rate.
The
test
conditions
are
monitored
from
a
central
test
stand
computer.
The
test
stand
flow
rate
is
controlled
by
an
air
operated
control
valve.
This
valve
is
controlled
by
the
central
test
stand
computer.
An
induced
draft
fan
is
used
to generate
air
flow.
Through
the
use
of
water
misting
noz-
zles
spraying
water
heated
by
an
on-demand
electric
hot
water
heater,
the
RH
can
be
increased
up
to
99+%.
An-
other
aerosol
generator
can
be
used
if
additional
water
spray
is
needed
to
increase
the
relative
humidity.
That
generator
uses
de-ionized
water,
compressed
air,
and
an
atomizing
noz-
zle
to
spray
a
very
fine
mist
of
water
into
the
test
stand.
The
test
stand
can
achieve
dry
mass
loading
rates
of
up
to
600
mg/m
3
using
a
variety
of
aerosol
generation
systems.
This
dry
mass
loading
rate
represents
the
quantity
of
solids
that
are
in
the
liquid
waste
surrogate,
either
suspended
or
dissolved.
,
,
AP(
i
•••
'VP
HG.
3.
Picture
of
the
test
stand
indicating
the
components.
105107-4
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
B.
Instrumentation,
sensors,
and
control
system
The
test
stand
is
outfitted
with
aerosol
measure-
ment
instrumentation
and
variety
of
sensors.
Upstream
and
downstream
temperature,
differential
temperature
across
the
HEME
element,
static
pressure,
differential
pressure,
and
downstream
relative
humidity
are
measured.
Data
from
all
sensors
are
continuously
logged
by
the
central
test
stand
com-
puter.
This
computer
is
capable
of
storing
and
presenting
the
testing
information.
1.
Wet
aerosol
measurement
Analytical
aerosol
measurement
instrumentation
could
not
be
used
to
determine
a
mass
loading
rate
during
wet
load-
ing
due
to
the
caustic
and
humid
nature
of
the
waste
surrogate.
Two
types
of
miniature
sampling
trains
are
utilized
instead.
The
first
method
utilizes
an
EPA
Reference
Method-5i
7
filter
assembly
with
a
glass
fiber
filter
and
a
standard
midget
im-
pinger
sampling
train.
An
image
of
this
first
method
appears
in
Figure
4(a).
The
second
method
does
not
include
a
filter
before
the
midget
impinger
sampling
train.
An
image
of
this
sampling
method
is
presented
in
Figure
4(b).
A
SKC
personal
air
sampling
pump
is
used
to
pull
the
air
sample
as
isokinet-
icly
as
possible.
The
pump
is
calibrated
before
and
after
each
4.
MN
[..71
'
911
(a)
1
e
(b)
FIG.
4.
(a)
Complete
RM-5i
filter
train
set-up
used
for
wet
aerosol
sampling
and
(b)
Orifice
type
impinger
train
set
up
for
wet
aerosol
sampling.
sample.
A
linear
change
in
volumetric
flow
rate
is
assumed
when
the
calibrator
indicates
a
different
final
flow
rate
than
the
initial
flow
rate.
Sampling
is
conducted
during
loading
of
HEME
elements
to
determine
both
wet
and
dry
mass
loading
rates.
2.
Dry
aerosol
measurement
The
electrical
instrumentation
can
be
used
when
the
test
conditions
involve
a
dry
aerosol
challenge
in
a
non-
condensing
airstream.
The
electrical
instruments
were
ex-
clusively
used
to
determine
the
FE
of
the
HEME
element.
The
instruments
used
to
determine
the
FE
include
an
aero-
dynamic
particle
spectrometer
(APS)
and
two
configurations
of
a
scanning
mobility
particle
sizer
(SMPS).
The
APS
is
a
time-of-flight
measurement
device
that
measures
the
aerody-
namic
diameter
and
light-scattering
intensity
of
aerosol
parti-
cles
and
has
been
extensively
studied."
The
SMPS
consists
of
a
electrostatic
classifier
(EC),
a
differential
mobility
ana-
lyzer
(DMA),
and
a
condensation
particle
counter
(CPC).
1°
Other
instruments
are
available
such
as
a
laser
aerosol
spec-
trometer
or
an
electrical
low
pressure
impactor,
but
they
were
not
used
in
these
tests.
More
information
on
aerosol
measure-
ment
instrumentation
is
available.
11
C.
Challenge
aerosol
The
ICET
has
the
capability
to
generate
multiple
chal-
lenge
aerosols
such
as
aerosol
powders
generated
with
a
powder
feeder,
critical
orifice
nozzle,
and
compressed
air.
Such
dry
aerosols
include
alumina,
Al(OH)
3
,
carbon
black,
Arizona
road
dust,
and
ASHRAE
test
dusts.
Wet
aerosols
can
also
be
generated
by
spray
nozzles
or
Laskin
nozzles.
These
wet
aerosols
can
combine
dissolved
and
suspended
solids
to
create
any
solution
needed.
Other
aerosols
such
as
polydis-
perse
or
monodisperse
DOP
can
also
be
used.
The
tests
performed
by
ICET
challenged
the
HEME
el-
ements
with
aerosols
of
known
PSD
representative
of
those
generated
during
hazardous
waste
tank
sparging.
The
surro-
gate
recipe
is
detailed
in
Table
IR.
The
surrogate
was
prepared
in
a
stainless
steel
208
1
(55
gal)
drum
and
stirred
constantly
for
the
duration
of
the
HEME
testing
to
prevent
settling
of
the
suspended
solids.
D.
Aerosol
generation
systems
1.
Wet
aerosol
generation
The
liquid
aerosols
used
to
challenge
the
HEME
ele-
ments
were
created
using
a
wet
aerosol
generator
fabricated
by
ICET
personnel.
The
wet
aerosol
generator
features
an
outer
chamber
that
serves
as
a
humidification
chamber
where
hot
water
is
produced
from
an
on-demand
hot
water.
This
aerosol
generator
is
presented
in
Figure
5.
A
series
of
seven
quad-nozzle
greenhouse-type
misting
heads
sprayed
the
hot
water
into
the
outer
chamber.
This
mist
is
sprayed
onto
a
plex-
iglass
shield
to
minimize
the
quantity
of
water
droplets
drawn
into
the
inner
chamber
of
the
wet
aerosol
generator.
Excess
water
is
removed
by
a
drain
in
the
floor
of
the
outer
chamber.
105107-5
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
TABLE
III.
Composition
of
the
ICET
HEME
surrogate.
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
Component
Chemical
formula
Concentration
(g/1)
Amount
(g)
required
to
make
2001
Total
(g)
Sodium
oxalate
Na2C2O2
1.9
380 380
Aluminum
nitrate
(60%
solution)
Al(NO3)3-9H20
78
15
600
15
600
Sodium
phosphate
Na3PO4-12H20
25
5000
5
500
Sodium
sulfate
Na2SO4
25
5000 5000
Sodium
nitrate
NaNO3
104
20
800
20
800
Sodium
hydroxide
(50%
solution)
NaOH
127
25
400
25
400
Sodium
nitrite
NaNO2
35
7000 7000
Sodium
carbonate
Na2CO3
58.57
11
714
11
214
Alumina
Al(OH)3
29
000
FE(HI)
9600
Anti-foaming
agent
80
Fine
aerosol
particles
were
produced
through
the
use
of
Laskin
nozzles
fabricated
by
ICET.
These
nozzles
were
fab-
ricated
according
to
the
design
of
Laskin.
12,13
Four
sets
of
six
Laskin
nozzles
were
constructed.
Images
of
a
nozzle
set
is
presented
in
Figure
6.
A
nozzle
set
was
assembled
by
connect-
ing
six
nozzles
to
one
manifold
through
which
compressed
air
was
supplied.
Each
nozzle
set
was
placed
into
a
7.6
1
(2
gal)
plastic
bucket
containing
approximately
4
1
of
waste
surro-
gate,
as
shown
in
Figure
7.
An
outlet
pipe
attached
to
the
lid
of
each
bucket
directed
aerosol
output
into
the
inlet
of
the
test
housing.
Each
bucket
was
equipped
with
a
silicon
tube
on
the
outside
to
serve
as
a
sight
glass
for
monitoring
the
surro-
gate
level
within
the
bucket.
Additional
waste
surrogate
was
added
to
the
buckets
using
variable
speed
peristaltic
pumps
when
needed.
Four
buckets
were
placed
in
the
inner
chamber
of
the
wet
aerosol
generator.
Air
was
supplied
to
the
Laskin
nozzle
sets
at
275.8
kPa
(40
psi).
Larger
aerosol
particles
were
produced
by
spraying
sur-
rogate
directly
into
the
inner
chamber
of
the
wet
aerosol
gen-
erator
using
an
air
atomizing
nozzle.
This
nozzle
is
displayed
in
Figure
8.
The
liquid
waste
surrogate
was
pumped
to
the
nozzle
using
a
peristaltic
pump.
As
with
the
Laskin
nozzle
buckets,
this
spray
nozzle
was
inserted
inside
the
inner
cham-
ber
of
the
wet
aerosol
generator
to
minimize
contamination
of
the
waste surrogate
to
the
outer
chamber.
2.
Dry
aerosol
generation
The
FE
measurements
can
only
be
taken
when
the
wet
aerosol
generation
system
is
not
operating,
the
water
mist-
ing
nozzles
are
off,
and
the
airstream
entering
the
housing
contains
few
or
zero
droplets
of
water.
Testing
measurements
were,
therefore,
made
at
pre-determined
intervals
of
differ-
ential
pressure
across
the
HEME
element.
Multiple
aerosol
challenge
options
are
available
to
make
the
FE
measurements.
The
two
challenge
aerosols
used
for
this
were
a
polydisperse
DOP
and
a
dried
version
of
the
waste
surrogate.
Displayed
in
FIG.
5.
ICET
wet
aerosol
generation
chamber.
FIG.
6.
Images
of
Laskin
nozzles
used
for
producing
wet
aerosols
of
a
small
diameter.
•
'0
-
•
M
HG.
7.
Laskin
nozzle
bucket
assembly.
4-
•
•••110.
iesstlir
st
I
I
.
N
I
_
x
1
CAUTION
NOVI
—
41
11
1
lan
k
_
MINIM
ilirmg
105107-6
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
1
•••
t
.
HG.
9.
Commercial
Laskin
nozzle
DOP
generator.
Figure
9
is
the
commercially
available
Laskin
nozzle
DOP
generator
used
to
challenge
with
DOP.
Figure
10
presents
the
dry
aerosol
generator
designed
and
built
by
ICET
used
to
challenge
the
element
with
dry
waste
surrogate.
Details
re-
lated
to
the
design
and
operation
of
the
dry
aerosol
genera-
tor
have
been
demonstrated
through
the
previous
work
on
the
small
scale
HEPA
test
stand.
3,7
FIG.
8.
ICET
wet
aerosol
spray
nozzle
setup.
HG.
10.
ICET
dry
aerosol
generation
system.
Laskin
Nozzle
DOP
Generator
PSD
(SMPS
&
APS)
Logarithmic
M11111111M1111111•1111111
M111111111r
11111111E1111111
N111111111
1111111•1111111
M11111111
Al
1111111E1111111
1E11111111i
11
111111•1111111
Mt
11111E1111111
INI111111
MK
11111E1111111
M11111
MEI
11E1111111
•
111.11•1111111
vor.111•11111,'"ummum
0.1
10
Particle
Diameter
(pm)
(b)
Dried
Waste
Surrogate
PSD
(SMPS
&
APS)
Logarithmic
MIIIIIIIIIMPE111111•111
111111•011
Al
111111E111
MI1111111'
Ilk
'MEIN
M11111'
Ail
'91E111
,M111,
1
U111
ENV
A11E111111',
'VIII
rw
,i11111111111k.
111
LL
iIIIIII
■■
IIIIIII~~''
0.1
1
Particle
Diameter
(rim)
Norm
a
l
iz
e
d
Concen
tra
t
ion
(
dN
/d
log
dp
)(
d/cm
3)
4.50E+05
:
'S;
4.00E+05
ett
o
3.50E+05
4
3.00E+05
g
2.50E+05
2.00E+05
1.50E+05
o
1.00E+05
C.)
gi
5.00E+04
S
0.00E+00
0.01
z
1.00E+07
9.00E+06
8.00E+06
7.00E+06
6.00E+06
5.00E+06
4.00E+06
3.00E+06
2.00E+06
1.00E+06
0.00E+00
0.01
105107-7
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
4
5
E
1.00E+07
ti
9.00E+06
r
8.00E+06
g
7.00E+06
6.00E+06
5.00E+06
4.00E+06
3.00E+06
C.)
2.00E+06
0
1.00E+06
.00E+00
0
-
3
Particle
Diameter
(p.m)
(a)
4.50E+05
4.00E+05
2
DL
3.50E+05
k-
3.00E+05
2.50E+05
2.00E+05
8
•
1.50E+05
C.)
1.00E+05
41
•
5.00E+04
0.00E+00
z
Dried
Waste
Surrogate
PSD
(SMPS
&
APS)
0
1
2
3
4
5
Particle
Diameter
(pm)
(a)
Laskin
Nozzle
DOP
Generator
PSD
(SMPS
&
APS)
(b)
HG.
11.
DOP
PSD
on
normal
scale
(a)
and
lognormal
scale
(b).
III.
TEST
STAND
CHARACTERIZATION
A.
Dry
aerosol
upstream
challenge
To
properly
characterize
the
test
stand
certain
aspects
need
to
be
examined.
The
first
aspect
is
the
dry
aerosol
up-
stream
challenge.
The
upstream
PSD
allows
for
the
develop-
ment
of
a
penetration
curve
and
determination
of
the
MPPS.
The
first
challenge
aerosol
is
the
polydisperse
DOP.
The
PSD
for
the
DOP
is
shown
on
a
normal
scale
in
Figure
11(a),
and
on
a
lognormal
scale
in
Figure
11(b).
Figure
11(b)
shows
the
count
median
diameter
(CMD)
to
be
around
200
nm.
The
peak
concentration
at
the
CMD
is
approximately
9
x
10
6
particles
per
cubic
centimeter.
Figure
12
displays
the
PSD
on
the
normal
scale
(a)
and
lognormal
scale
(b)
for
the
dried
waste
surrogate.
This
chal-
lenge
aerosol
has
a
CMD
slightly
larger
than
the
DOP
at
approximately
240
nm.
There
are
far
fewer
particles
in
this
aerosol
challenger
with
the
maximum
at
4
x
10
5
particles
per
cubic
centimeter.
The
dried
waste
urrogate
has
a
larger
mass
median
diameter
as
opposed
to
the
DOP
because
it
has
more
larger
particles.
HG.
12.
Dried
waste
surrogate
PSD
on
normal
scale
(a)
and
lognormal
scale
(b).
B.
Wash
down
test
characterization
A
primary
component
for
characterization
during
the
wash
down
testing
is
the
development
of
a
nozzle
design
with
the
proper
pressure
and
wash
time.
The
purpose
of
the
noz-
zle
design
is
to
maximize
coverage
of
the
HEME
element
while
minimizing
the
quantity
of
water
output.
All
evaluated
nozzles
designs
used
PVC
tubing
with
slits
cut
in
the
sides
to
make
the
water
spray
out
in
a
fan
shape.
The
first
noz-
zle
design
utilized
two
separate
spray
sections,
one
at
the
top
of
the
HEME
element
and
one
in
the
middle.
Both
sections
had
8
slits
arranged
in
a
spiral
pattern.
This
arrangement
al-
lowed
for
full
coverage
of
the
HEME
with
water
spray
at
both
locations.
When
pressurized
to
103
kPa
(15
psi)
this
configuration
would
dispense
33.6
1/min
(7.4
gpm)
of
water
on
the
vertical
interior
face
of
the
HEME
element.
If
this
configuration
dispensed
for
5
min
the
test
resulted
in
a
sig-
nificant
increase
in
the
differential
pressure
across
the
ele-
ment.
The
spray
nozzle
was
redesigned
to
dispense
less
wa-
ter
because
this
large
increase
in
the
differential
pressure
was
undesirable.
105107-8
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
The
second
spray
nozzle
design
is
similar
to
the
first
but
with
three
major
differences.
First,
only
one
set
of
nozzles
is
used
to
reduce
the
total
water
output.
Next,
the
vertical
spac-
ing
between
the
8
slits
is
reduced
by
50%
to
keep
the
total
water
output
as
close
together
as
possible.
Finally,
the
slits
in
the
PVC
are
cut
at
the
very
top
of
the
HEME
where
there
is
a
metal
band.
By
allowing
the
water
to
spray
the
metal
band
and
flow
down
the
inner
surface
of
the
HEME
the
possibil-
ity
for
entrainment
of
water
in
the
element
media
is
mini-
mized.
These
changes
resulted
in
a
lower
differential
pressure
increase
across
the
HEME
due
to
the
water
spray.
The
sec-
ond
spray
nozzle
design
generated
9.09
I/min
(2.0
gpm)
at
68.9
kPa
(10
psi).
Using
spray
times
of
30
s
to
2
min
this
con-
figuration
resulted
in
an
acceptable
increase
in
the
differential
pressure.
The
accepted
second
nozzle
design
was
used
for
the
wash
down
tests.
IV.
RESULTS
Two
sets
of
results
are
discussed
in
this
report.
The
first
set
features
results
from
the
loading
test
on
multiple
HEME
elements
without
an
intermittent
wash
down.
The
second
fea-
tures
results
from
a
loading
test
on
a
single
HEME
element
including
intermittent
washings.
The
result
sets presented
here
represent
the
types
of
data
the
test
stand
is
capable
of
providing.
A.
HEME
loading
test
without
wash
down
A
large
number
of
data
were
collected
from
both
the
par-
ticle
measurement
instrumentation
and
the
test
stand
control
system
during
the
process
of
testing
each
filter.
These
data
include:
Entire
test:
•
Intermittent
mass
loading
information
•
Test
flow
rate
•
Test
relative
humidity
•
Test
temperature
•
HEME
differential
pressure
•
HEME
differential
temperature.
During
FE
measurement
intervals:
•
Upstream
particle
size
distribution
and
concentration
•
Downstream
particle
size
distribution
and
concentra-
tion.
The
results
summary
presented
in
Table
IV
are
data
generated
from
a
test
on
a
HEME
element
evaluated
at
2.49
m
3
/min
(88
cfm)
without
a
wash
down
spraying
sys-
tem.
The
mass
loading
concentration
was
approximately
475
mg/m
3
for
the
dry
material.
The
filtering
efficiency
was
examined
at
intervals
of
differential
pressure
of
1.25,
2.25,
3,
and
3.75
kPa
(5,
9,
12,
and
15
in.
w.c.)
across
the
HEME
ele-
ment.
Table
IV
presents
the
testing
summary
and
includes
the
average
FE
and
the
average
FE
greater
than
50
nm.
The
aver-
age
FE
represents
the
average
for
all
particle
sizes
measured.
The
average
FE
greater
than
50
nm
indicates
the
average
for
all
particle
sizes
greater
than
50
nm.
The
50
nm
point
is
sig-
TABLE
IV.
Testing
summary
for
HEME
element
tested
without
wash
down.
As
received
mass:
66.7
lb
Dried
(tare)
mass:
66.7
lb
Final
wet
mass:
76.2
lb
Final
dry
mass:
68.3
lb
Total
dry
mass
loading:
1.6
lb
Average
FE
for
DOP:
98.67%
Average
FE
for
dry
surrogate:
96.4%
FE
for
>50
nm
for
DOP:
99.78%
FE
for
particle
>50
nm
for
dry
surrogate:
99.31%
Wet
mass
concentration
(filter
method)
2012.26
mg/m
3
Wet
mass
concentration
(impinger
method)
2009.70
mg/m
3
Dry
mass
concentration
(filter
method)
392.83
mg/m
3
Dry
mass
concentration
(impinger
method)
578.22
mg/m
3
nificant
because
it
is
suspected
that
a
large
percentage
of
the
particles below
that
size
measured
downstream
are
actually
water
droplets
that
have
migrated
through
the
HEME
media
and
aerosolized
as
they
are
sprayed
off
the
outer
surface.
Figure
13(a)
illustrates
the
differential
pressure
and
tem-
perature
across
the
HEME
element
as
a
function
of
time.
HEME
Differential
Pressure
and
Differential
Temperature
vs.
Time
Flow
Rate:
2.49m
3
/min
04
2
•••
•
•
3
1.1
5
10
15
Time
(hours)
HEME
dP
HEME
dT
(a)
Condition
Stability
Flow
Rate
2.49
m
3
/min
.014144
.......%
I
•
•
s
e
••,,
.
r
.
.
%lc
•
-•.
I
•
X
•
6••:••
t
IS
• •
ft
e
-,....",....
-
1
*
_
.
•
-•
-•.-
I
0
5
10
Time
(hours)
Relative
Humidity
Volumetric
Flowrate
(b)
FIG.
13.
(a)
HEME
differential
pressure
and
differential
temperature
versus
time,
(b)
condition
stability
versus
time.
4.5
7
3
4
t
3.5
g
3
P.
2.5
2
'o
1.5
a
5
a
0.5
0
0
-0.1
.
..
•
7
4
LL
0.6
2
100
95
90
85
Fe.
80
75
E
70
65
60
41
55
50
30
25
3
o
204`
E
15
10
5
li
o
15
Temperature
105107-9
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
Upstream
PSD,
Downstream
PSD,
and
FE
DOP
Upstream
PSD,
Downstream
PSD,
FE
Surrogate
1.60E+07
11.40E+07
-
4
4
-
1.20E+07
<,.;
1.00E+07
c
58.00E+06
6.00E+06
t
4.00E+06
22.00E-1-06
0.00E+00
6.00E+04
4.50E+05
e.;4.00E+05
63.50E+05
3.00E+05
2.50E-F05
0
2.00E+05
e
1.50E-F05
,11.00E+05
ti..
5.00E+04
600
0.00E+00
..,.,,.._
-..-7q11•11k..:1146L._
.11i.-7"•441i6_
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
100
200
300
400
500
E
'7'4.00E+04
c-
)
3.00E+04
E
t
2.00E+04
A
0
1.00E+04
0.00E+00
Filte
r
ing
Effic
ie
ncy
(
%)
I00
95
-4}
90
85
80
75
70
3.50E+04
'a
X
0
3.00E+04
2.50E+04
c.;
c.)
2.00E+04
ats
1.50E+04
01.00E+04
400
x-x-x
5.00E+03
600
0.00E+00
0
100
100
200
300
.....
•••••••••-••••••••••
......
500
600
Y•1-
v
-
9
\
90
80
70
60
50
100
200
300
400
500
•
Filte
r
ing
Effic
ie
ncy
(
%)
100
200
300
400
500
600
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
Particle
Diameter
(nm)
Particle
Diameter
(nm)
•
DOP
(Initial,
HEME
Dry)
•
DOP
(Initial,
HEME
Wet)
x
DOP
(5
in.
w.c.)
+
DOP
(9
in.
w.c.)
DOP
(12
in.
w.c.)
•
DOP
(15
in.
w.c.)
ESurrogate
(Initial,
HEME
Dry)
•
Surrogate
(5
in.
w.c.)
•
Surrogate
(12
in.
w.c.)
x
Surrogate
(Initial,
HEME
Wet)
-Surrogate
(9
in.
w.c.)
•
Surrogate
(15
in.
w.c.)
(a)
(b)
FIG.
14.
Upstream
PSD,
downstream
PSD,
and
filtering
efficiency
for
HEME-AMCO-1
while
challenging
with
(a)
DOP
and
(b)
dry
surrogate.
Figure
13(b)
shows
the
testing
conditions
as
the
element
was
tested.
This
figure
also
displays
a
relatively
stable
volumet-
ric
flow
rate
of
2.49
m
3
/min
(88
cfm)
and
RH
staying
within
90%-100%.
The
drops
in
RH
and
temperature
in
Figure
13(b)
correspond
to
times
when
the
intermittent
FE
is
collected.
The
drops
are
due
to
the
discontinued
water
spray
during
those
times.
1.
FE
measurements
Particle
measurements
were
made
to
determine
the
HEME
element's
filtering
efficiency
using
a
dry
aerosol
chal-
lenge
at
different
intervals
of
differential
pressure
during
the
loading
process.
The
RH
dropped
during
this
time
because
the
water
spray
had
to
be
discontinued.
The
efficiency
measure-
ments
were
made
as
quickly
as
possible
to
prevent
the
HEME
element
from
drying
excessively.
Figure
14(a)
depicts
the
upstream
and
downstream
PSD,
as
well
as,
the
filtering
efficiency
versus
particle
diameter.
These
parameters
are
plotted
at
different
intervals
of
load-
ing.
The
initial
two
points
are
for
a
clean
HEME
element.
They
represent
the
HEME
element,
while
it
is
dry
and
one
wetted.
All
of
the
results
in
Figure
14(a)
are
from
a
test us-
ing
DOP
as
the
challenge
aerosol.
The
HEME
is
considered
wetted
when
the
relative
humidity
downstream
of
the
element
reaches
either
99%
or
is
95%
and
experiences
zero
fluctuation
for
30
or
more
minutes.
The
penetration
curve
displayed
in
1
051
07-1
0
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
Figure
14(a)
shows
99%
or
greater
efficiency
for
particles
with
a
diameter
more
than
100
nm.
From
the
penetration
curve
MPPS
is
around
30
nm.
It
is
undetermined
if
this
is
due
to
the
aspiration
of
water
droplets
through
the
HEME
element
or
is
actually
solid
aerosol
particles.
The
CMD
and
geometric
standard
deviation
(GSD)
should
be
considered
when
examining
an
aerosol
stream.
An
increase
in
the
downstream
GSD
is
a
strong
indicator
of
a
leak
in
the
HEME
element.
Before
a
leak
has
occurred
the
downstream
PSD
is
rather
monodisperse
as
the
filtering
ele-
ment
releases
particle
near
its
MPPS.
As
a
leak
develops
the
downstream
PSD
becomes
more
polydisperse
and
this
results
in
an
increase
in
the
downstream
GSD.
The
upstream
CMD
was
approximately
200
nm
and
the
upstream
GSD
was
1.8.
The
downstream
CMD
was
225
nm
and
the
downstream
GSD
was
2.
The
second
challenge
aerosol
used
to
determine
filtering
efficiency
is
a
dried
version
of
the
wet
waste
surrogate
mix-
ture.
Figure
14(b)
illustrates
the
upstream
and
downstream
PSD
as
well
as
the
filtering
efficiency
versus
particle
diam-
eter
for
the
surrogate
challenge.
The
upstream
CMD
for
the
surrogate
was
175
nm
and
the
upstream
GSD
was
2.2.
The
downstream
CMD
for
the
surrogate
was
60
nm
and
the
down-
stream
GSD
was
3.3.
2.
Images
Figure
15
displays
images
of
the
HEME
element,
exte-
rior
(a)
and
interior
(b),
after
testing.
Figure
15(b)
shows
the
element
interior
has
a
reddish
hue
caused
by
the
iron
content
in
the
undissolved
solids
portion
of
the
waste
surrogate.
B.
HEME
wash
down
test
The
HEME
wash
down
test
consisted
of
two
phases.
The
first
phase
determined
how
the
HEME
element
reacted
to
wa-
ter
spray,
while
the
element
was
clean.
The
second
phase
called
for
washing
the
element
at
different
intervals
of
load-
ing.
The
test
team
observed
during
the
initial
phase
of
testing
that
water
alone
can
cause
the
HEME
differential
pressure
to
rise
which
must
be
taken
into
account
when
determining
the
success
of
wash
down.
The
initial
test
concluded
that
the
HEME
element
should
only
be
washed
for
30
s
at
68.9
kPa
(10
psi)
from
the
second
water
nozzle
design
that
sprays
a
total
of
5.3
1
(1.4
gal)
of
water
during
that
time.
The
filtering
efficiency
of
the
HEME
element
varied
from
99.6%
to
99.95%
during
testing.
A
total
of
six
loading/wash-
downs
were
performed.
Each
test
began
with
determining
TABLE
V.
Results
summary
for
wash-down
testing
of
HEME-MECS-3.
0
•••
I
(a)
_
rr
'
1
s
hy
,_____
•04,-
,
•
%
•
;,
A
1,
,,,,;,„
,
imam
,
r•
-
•
i
t."
'
(b)
FIG.
15.
(a)
Exterior
and
(b)
interior
of
a
loaded
HEME
element.
the
filtering
efficiency
of
the
HEME.
Next,
the
HEME
was
loaded
with
the
waste
surrogate
to
an
increased
differential
pressure.
Following
the
loading,
the
HEME
was
washed
with
water
using
the
aforementioned
wash-down
nozzle.
The
test
Load
#
Change
in
dP
Initial
wet
dP
Final
wet
dP
Time
Next
day
wetted
dP
Initial
FE
Final
FE
1
0.259
kPa
(1
in.
w.c.)
1.084
kPa
1.343
kPa
76
min
1.258
kPa
99.95%
99.88%
2
0.249
kPa
(1
in.
w.c.)
1.245
kPa
1.495
kPa
50
min
1.240
kPa
99.88%
99.68%
3
0.757
kPa
(3
in.
w.c.)
1.238
kPa
1.995
kPa
70
min
1.188
kPa
99.68%
99.85%
4
1.495
kPa
(6
in.
w.c.)
1.146
kPa
2.640
kPa
73
min
1.238
kPa
99.85%
99.90%
5
to
3.736
kPa
(15
in.
w.c.)
1.233
kPa
3.786
kPa
134
min
1.250
kPa
99.90%
99.93%
6
to
3.736
kPa
(15
in.
w.c.)
1.245
kPa
3.736
kPa
64
min
1.288
kPa
99.93%
99.93%
-..
-
MALAN
Nib
,4F
Val
•
1
051
07-1
1
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
FIG.
16.
Image
of
the
exterior
of
the
test
HEME
after
the
loading/wash down
tests.
stand
fan
was
then
operated
overnight
to
dry
the
element
after
wash-down.
The
next
day,
the
HEME
was
rehydrated
by
ini-
tiating
the
water
spray
system
to
raise
the
humidity
to
99%.
Finally,
a
final
filtering
efficiency
was
determined.
Then
the
process
was
repeated
to
the
next
differential
pressure
interval.
Table
V
summarizes
the
results
of
the
six
loading/wash
down
tests
conducted
by
ICET
personnel.
The
next-day
wetted
differential
pressure
was
proximate
to
the
initial
wet
differential
pressure.
This
indicated
a
suc-
cessful
wash
down
operation.
However,
concern
remains
that
some
of
the
drop
in
differential
pressure
was
due
to
water
driven
off
by
drying
and
not
the
removal
of
waste
surrogate
from
the
HEME.
The
initial
mass
for
this
testing
was
27.0
kg
(59.6
lb)
and
the
final
dried
mass
was
27.7
kg
(61.1
lb),
an
increase
of
0.68
kg
(1.5
lb).
Figures
16
and
17
display
the
exterior
and
interior
of
the
HEME
element
after
wash
down
testing.
An
important
aspect
of
these
repeated
washings
is
the
impact
on
the
pressure
drop
due
to
the
washings.
Inherently,
plugging
the
HEME
with
water
increases
the
differential
pres-
HG.
17.
Image
of
the
interior
of
the
test
HEME
after
the
loading/wash down
tests.
sure
across
the
element.
This
required
the
drying
of
the
ele-
ment
overnight
to
drive
this
water
off.
Because
of
this
dry-
ing
the
filter
would
need
to
be
"rehydrated"
by
exposure
to
100%
relative
humidity
without
the
washing
waterspray
to
determine
if
the
pressure
drop
was
lower
after
the
washing
cycle.
V.
CONCLUSIONS
A
test
stand
capable
of
evaluating
the
performance
of
a
HEME
element
has
been
designed
and
constructed.
An
eval-
uation
test
bed
is
critical
to
properly
mapping
filter
perfor-
mance
capabilities
and
limitations
with
little
refereed
infor-
mation
pertaining
to
these
units
available.
The
test
stand
is
capable
of
accommodating
tests
with
a
range
of
specifications
including
flow
conditions,
challenge
aerosol,
and
inlet
humid-
ity
conditions.
The
test
stand
has
the
additional
capability
to
assess
the
performance
of
a
wash
down
system
on
the
overall
loading
capacity
of
a
HEME
element.
Different
instrumenta-
tion
suites
can
be
utilized
to
record
mass
loading
rates,
fil-
tering
efficiencies,
and
test
parameters
depending
on
the
air
stream.
The
quality
program
at
ICET
allows
for
NQA-1
qual-
ity
data
generation.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We
acknowledge
the
support
of
this
work
under
Depart-
ment
of
Energy
(DOE)
Contract
No.
DEFC0106EW07040
06040310.
The
Institute
for
Clean
Energy
Technology
(ICET)
at
Mississippi
State
University
(MSU)
was
established
in
1979
to
support
the
Department
of
Energy's
Magnetohydro-
dynamic
(MHD)
power
program.
From
the
inception
of
ICET,
the
mission
has
been
to
develop
advanced
instrumentation
and
use
that
instrumentation
to
characterize
processes
and
equip-
ment.
ICET's
testing
capability
and
ability
to
rapidly
deploy
sophisticated
instrumentation
in
the
field
have
been
important
components
of
its
success.
ICET
has
recently
become
part
of
the
newly
formed
Energy
Institute
at
MSU.
ICET
has
a
multidisciplinary
staff
of
20
full-time
em-
ployees,
including
chemists,
physicists,
computer
scientists,
and
chemical,
electrical,
and
mechanical
engineers.
ICET
employees
have
leading-edge
expertise
in
the
application
of
lasers
to
energy
and
environmental
cleanup.
ICET's
staff
is
a
unique
blend
of
measurement
specialists,
control
specialists,
and
an
experienced
engineering
and
operations
staff
primed
to
carry
out
the
organization's
mission.
ICET
also
employs
graduate
and
undergraduate
students
who
further
support
re-
search
operations.
ICET
employs
a
Certified
Industrial
Hy-
gienist
(CIH)
and
a
Certified
Hazardous
Materials
Manager
(CHMM)
who
ensure
all
activities
conducted
by
ICET
adhere
to
applicable
environmental,
safety,
and
health
practices.
1
J.
K.
Rouse,
"Hanford
RPP-WTP
high-level
waste
vitrification
offgas
sys-
tem,"
in
Proceedings
of
the
26th
DOE/NRC
Nuclear
Air
Cleaning
Confer-
ence,
CH2M
Hill
Hanford
Group,
Inc.,
Richland,
Washington,
2000.
2
ASME
AG-1,
Code
on
Nuclear
Air
and
Gas
Treatment
(American
Society
of
Mechanical
Engineers,
2009).
3
R.
Arunkumar,
K.
U.
Hogencamp,
M.
S.
Parsons,
D.
M.
Rogers,
0.
P.
Norton,
B.
A.
Nagel,
S.
L.
Alderman,
and
C.
A.
Waggoner,
Rev.
Sci.
In-
strum.
78,
85
(2007).
105107-12
Giffin,
Parsons,
and
Waggoner
Rev.
Sci.
Instrum.
83,
105107
(2012)
4
S.
L.
Alderman,
M.
S.
Parsons,
K.
U.
Hogencamp,
and
C.
A.
Waggoner,
Occup.
Environ.
Hyg.
5(11),
713
(2008).
5
ASME
NQA-1-2008, Quality
Assurance
Requirements
for
Nuclear
Facility
Applications
(American
Society
of
Mechanical
Engineers,
2008).
6
ANSI/ASQ
Z1.13-1999,
Quality
Guidelines
for
Research
(American
Na-
tional
Standards
Institute
and
American
Society
for
Quality,
1999).
7
EPA
Reference
Methods,
40
CFR
Part
60,
Appendix
A,
Methods
4,
5,
5i.
8
B.
T.
Chen,
Y.
S.
Cheng,
and
H.
C.
Yeh,
Aerosol
Sci.
Technol.
4,
89
(1985).
9
T.
M.
Peters,
H.
M.
Chein,
D.
A.
Lundgren,
and
P.
B.
Keady,
Aerosol
Sci.
Technol.
19,
396
(1993).
C.
Wang
and
R.
C.
Ragan,
Aerosol
Sci.
Technol.
13(2),
230
(1990).
11
P.
A.
Baron
and
K.
Willeke,
Aerosol
Measurement:
Principles,
Techniques,
and
Applications,
2nd
ed.
(Wiley,
2005).
12
S.
Laskin,
"Submerged
aerosol
unit,"
AEC
Project
Quarterly
Report
No.
UR-38,
University
of
Rochester,
1948.
13
W
H.
Echols
and
J.
A.
Young,
"Studies
of
portable
air-operated
aerosol
generators,"
NRL
Report
No.
5929,
1963.

PDF Full Text

Download PDF Full TextA test stand for the evaluation of high efficiency mist eliminators