• Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers B
• /
• v.20 no.5
• /
• pp.1639-1648
• /
• 1996

Protection of gas turbine blade from its erosion and abrasion at high temperature and pressure is the first goal to cleanup the hot gas upstream for IGCC and PFBC. Ceramic filters represent an attractive technology for particle removal at high temperature and high pressure condition. They have demonstrated being a good system for improvement of thermal efficiency and reduction of effluent pollutants in advanced coal-based power systems such as IGCC and PFBC. Ceramic filter elements currently being developed were evaluated in the previous paper. In this paper, we measured the ash size and distribution on cleaning of ceramic candle filter. The results are as follows : in this experimental range, ceramic candle filter was shown to be fully adequate for the removal process of dust under high temperature and pressure. Also filtration efficiency of ceramic candle filter was higher than 98% compared with the regulation limit of particle size in gas turbine inlet.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.18 no.3
• /
• pp.177-184
• /
• 2008

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance characteristics of Andersen and total suspended particulate (TSP) samplers in terms of particle size distribution (PSD) and mass sampling efficiency. In the present study, two Andersen and four TSP samplers were selected and tested to quantitatively estimate human exposure to fly ash representing industrial particulate matter (PM) in a carefully controlled chamber. The PSD characteristics, a mass median aerodynamic diameter and a geometric standard deviation, were found from the sampled PM of airborne samplers in the chamber. An Andersen sampler was compared with a TSP sampler quantified by a coulter counter multisizer, as a reference sampler, to describe the correlation of mass sampling efficiencies between two types of samplers. Overall results indicate that Andersen samplers overestimated small PM due to particle bounce phenomena between impaction stages. There was reasonably good correlation ($R^2$ = 0.89 and 0.91) between the mass sampling efficiencies of Andersen and TSP samplers during the two tests. However, the lower values of slope (0.71 and 0.72) in two tests showed that the Andersen sampler underestimated PM (> AD $10.1\;{\mu}m$) with sufficient inertia due to a relatively lower Andersen inlet velocity at 0.8 m/s comparing with the operating air velocity at 2.1 m/s in the sampling zone of a chamber.

• Journal of Korean Society of Environmental Engineers
• /
• v.31 no.2
• /
• pp.153-160
• /
• 2009

A PM10 (aerodynamic diameter${\leq}$10 ${\mu}m$) sampler is used to quantify the potential human exposure to suspended particulate matter (PM) and to comply with the governmental regulation. This study was conducted to compare and evaluate the same PM10 cutpoint and different slopes between United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) PM10 sampling criterion and American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists/$Comit\acute{e}$ $Europ\acute{e}en$ de Normalization/International Organization for Standardization thoracic PM10 sampling criterion through theory and experiment. Four PM10 samplers according to the USEPA criterion and one RespiCon sampler in accordance with the thoracic PM10 criterion were used in the present study. In addition, one DustTrak monitor was used to measure real time PM10 mass concentrations. All six aerosol samplers were tested in a PM generation chamber using polydisperse fly ash. Theoretical mass concentrations were calculated by applying the measured particle size distribution characteristics (geometric mean = 6.6 ${\mu}m$, geometric standard deviation = 1.9) of fly ash to each sampling criterion. The measured mass concentrations through a chamber experiment were consistent with theoretical mass concentrations in that a RespiCon sampler with the thoracic PM10 criterion collected less PM than a PM10 sampler with the USEPA criterion. The overall chamber experiment results indicated, when a PM10 sampler was used as a reference sampler, that (1) a RespiCon sampler had a normalizing factor of 1.6, meaning that this sampler underestimated an average 60% of PM10 mass sampled from a PM10 sampler, and (2) a DustTrak real-time monitor using a PM10 inlet had a calibration factor of 2.1.