Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35602286›Full record

ArticleAerosol science and technology : the journal of the American Association for Aerosol Research2021

Experimental verification of principal losses in a regulatory particulate matter emissions sampling system for aircraft turbine engines.

D B Kittelson, J Swanson, M Aldridge, R A Giannelli, J S Kinsey, J A Stevens, D S Liscinsky, D Hagen, C Leggett, K Stephens and 16 more

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Aerosol science and technology : the journal of the American Association for Aerosol Research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

26 authors.

D B KittelsonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
J SwansonDepartment of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA.
M AldridgeNational Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
R A GiannelliNational Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
J S KinseyOffice of Research and Development, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, USA.
J A StevensNational Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
D S LiscinskyFormerly United Technologies Research Center, East Hartford, Connecticut, USA (retired).
D HagenCenter for Excellence for Aerospace Particulate Emissions Reduction Research, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA.
C LeggettNational Vehicle and Fuels Emissions Laboratory, Office of Transportation and Air Quality, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
K StephensAerospace Testing Alliance, Arnold Engineering Development Complex, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, USA.
B HoffmanAerospace Testing Alliance, Arnold Engineering Development Complex, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, USA.
R HowardAerospace Testing Alliance, Arnold Engineering Development Complex, Arnold Air Force Base, Tennessee, USA.
R W FrazeeAVL-North America, Plymouth, Michigan, USA.
W SilvisAVL-North America, Plymouth, Michigan, USA.
T McArthurARCADIS-U.S., Durham, North Carolina, USA.
P LoboCenter for Excellence for Aerospace Particulate Emissions Reduction Research, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA.
S AchterbergCenter for Excellence for Aerospace Particulate Emissions Reduction Research, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA.
M TruebloodCenter for Excellence for Aerospace Particulate Emissions Reduction Research, Missouri University of Science and Technology, Rolla, Missouri, USA.
K ThomsonNational Research Council-Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
L WolffBoston College, Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts, USA.
K CerullyTSI, Inc, Shoreview, Minnesota, USA.
T OnaschAerodyne Research, Inc, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA.
R Miake-LyeAerodyne Research, Inc, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA.
A FreedmanAerodyne Research, Inc, Billerica, Massachusetts, USA.
W BachaloArtium Technologies, Sunnyvale, California, USA.
G PayneArtium Technologies, Sunnyvale, California, USA.

Funding

Intramural EPA EPA999999
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

A sampling system for measuring emissions of nonvolatile particulate matter (nvPM) from aircraft gas turbine engines has been developed to replace the use of smoke number and is used for international regulatory purposes. This sampling system can be up to 35 m in length. The sampling system length in addition to the volatile particle remover (VPR) and other sampling system components lead to substantial particle losses, which are a function of the particle size distribution, ranging from 50 to 90% for particle number concentrations and 10-50% for particle mass concentrations. The particle size distribution is dependent on engine technology, operating point, and fuel composition. Any nvPM emissions measurement bias caused by the sampling system will lead to unrepresentative emissions measurements which limit the method as a universal metric. Hence, a method to estimate size dependent sampling system losses using the system parameters and the measured mass and number concentrations was also developed (SAE 2017; SAE 2019). An assessment of the particle losses in two principal components used in ARP6481 (SAE 2019) was conducted during the VAriable Response In Aircraft nvPM Testing (VARIAnT) 2 campaign. Measurements were made on the 25-meter sample line portion of the system using multiple, well characterized particle sizing instruments to obtain the penetration efficiencies. An agreement of ± 15% was obtained between the measured and the ARP6481 method penetrations for the 25-meter sample line portion of the system. Measurements of VPR penetration efficiency were also made to verify its performance for aviation nvPM number. The research also demonstrated the difficulty of making system loss measurements and substantiates the E-31 decision to predict rather than measure system losses.

Identifiers

PMID35602286
PMCPMC9118390

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.