1,720,969 research outputs found

    An overview of differential mobility analyzers for size classification of nanometer-sized aerosol particles

    No full text
    Size classification of nanoparticles is an important process in the electrical mobility particle size analyzer. The differential mobility analyzer (DMA) is one of the most commonly used devices for classifying and measuring nanometersized aerosol particles between 1 nm to 1 μm in diameter, based on their electrical mobility. The DMA can be described as an assembly of two concentrically cylindrical electrodes with an air gap between the walls. In the DMA, air and aerosol flows enter from one end, pass through the annulus and exit the other end. An electric field is applied between the inner and outer electrodes. Particles having a specific mobility exit with the monodisperse air flow through a small slit located at the bottom of the inner electrode. These particles are transferred to a particle counter to determine the particle number concentration. In the past several decades, there have been numerous extensive studies and developments on the DMA. Nonetheless, they are different in terms of specific applications, construction, particle size range, as well as time response and resolution. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of the state-of-the-art existing cylindrical DMAs for aerosol particle size classification as well as for the generation of monodisperse aerosol in nanometer size range. A description of the operating principles, detailed physical characteristics of these DMAs, including the single-channel and multi-channel DMAs, as well as some examples of applications to nanotechnology are given

    Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis

    Get PDF
    The present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
    corecore