| 静态箱法与分流法在切割器评价中的差异研究 |
| Research on the Difference Between Static Box Method and Shunt Method in the Evaluation of Cutter |
| 投稿时间：2024-05-10 修订日期：2025-01-08 |
| DOI：10.19316/j.issn.1002-6002.2025.04.25 |
| 中文关键词: 切割器 捕集效率 空气动力学直径 静态箱法 分流法 |
| 英文关键词:cutter capture efficiency aerodynamic diameter static box method shunt method |
| 基金项目:国家市场监督管理总局科技计划项目(2023MK001);中央引导地方科技发展资金项目(科技成果转移转化项目)(226Z3901G) |
| 作者 | 单位 | | 刘佳琪 | 北京市计量检测科学研究院, 国家生态环境监测治理产品质量监督检验中心, 北京 100029 | | 张国城* | 北京市计量检测科学研究院, 国家生态环境监测治理产品质量监督检验中心, 北京 100029 | | 王瑜 | 中国环境监测总站, 国家环境保护环境监测质量控制重点实验室, 北京 100012 | | 吴丹 | 北京市计量检测科学研究院, 国家生态环境监测治理产品质量监督检验中心, 北京 100029 | | 田莹 | 北京市计量检测科学研究院, 国家生态环境监测治理产品质量监督检验中心, 北京 100029 | | 潘一廷 | 北京市计量检测科学研究院, 国家生态环境监测治理产品质量监督检验中心, 北京 100029 | | 屈晓虎 | 河北先进环保产业创新中心有限公司, 河北 石家庄 050035 | | 张艳伟 | 河北先进环保产业创新中心有限公司, 河北 石家庄 050035 |
|
| 通讯作者:张国城* 北京市计量检测科学研究院, 国家生态环境监测治理产品质量监督检验中心, 北京 100029 |
| 摘要点击次数: 390 |
| 全文下载次数: 503 |
| 中文摘要: |
| 静态箱法和分流法作为PM2.5/PM10切割器性能评价中的两种重要方法,在国内计量机构均有应用,但两种方法评价结果的差异一直未被报道和重视。采用两种方法分别对某一旋风式PM2.5切割器进行评价,得到的Da50(捕集效率为50%时所对应的粒子空气动力学当量直径)分别为2.38 μm和2.31 μm,显示出明显差异。为了消除管路对颗粒物的吸附及气溶胶粒径谱仪的测量误差对实验结果的影响,在静态箱内安装分流管配件,将静态箱法简易快速地切换为分流法,然后再对同一PM2.5切割器进行评价,得到的Da50为2.40 μm,而直接使用静态箱法得到的Da50为2.38 μm,两个结果差异较小。利用该简易快速切换装置,分别基于静态箱法和分流法两种方法,对另一台国产PM2.5切割器、一台BGI PM1切割器进行评价,得到的Da50分别为2.43 μm和2.44 μm、1.02 μm和1.01 μm,显示出两种方法评价结果基本一致。研究结果表明,静态箱法和分流法对同一台旋风式切割器的评价结果应该是一致的,如果有明显差异,可能是由不同评价装置的管路结构、粒径谱仪原理等的不同引起的。 |
| 英文摘要: |
| Static box method and shunt method are two important methods for evaluating the performance of PM2.5/PM10 cutters in domestic metrology institutions,but the differences in evaluation results between these two methods have not been reported and given sufficient attention.Through the evaluation of a cyclone PM2.5 cutter,the Da50 (the particle aerodynamic diameter corresponding to a 50% collection efficiency) obtained by the two methods was 2.38 μm and 2.31 μm respectively,showing obvious difference.To eliminate the effects of particle adsorption in the pipeline and measurement errors from the aerosol particle size spectrometer on the experimental results,a split-flow tube accessory was installed in the static chamber.This allowed the static chamber method to be quickly and easily switched to the split-flow method.Subsequently,the same PM2.5 cutter was reevaluated,yielding a Da50 of 2.40 μm,while the Da50 obtained using the static chamber method was 2.38 μm,the difference was not obvious.The Da50 values of 1.02 μm and 1.01 μm for a cyclone PM1 cutter were evaluated by using the static box method and shunt method,and the results were basically consistent.Utilizing this rapid and simple switching device,evaluations were conducted on another domestic PM2.5 cutter and a BGI PM1 cutter using both the static box method and the shunt method.The resulting Da50 values were 2.43 μm and 2.44 μm,and 1.02 μm and 1.01 μm respectively,indicating that the evaluation results from the two methods were virtually identical.The research showed that the static box method and the shunt method should have the same evaluation results for the same cyclone cutter.If there is any difference,it may be caused by the difference of pipeline structure and particle size spectrometer of different detection devices. |
| 查看全文 查看/发表评论 下载PDF阅读器 |
|
|
|
