Determining the cutoff diameter and counting efficiency of optical particle counters with an aerodynamic aerosol classifier and an inkjet aerosol generator
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A method to determine the cutoff diameter and counting efficiency of single-particle optical particle counters (OPC) is presented. An aerodynamic aerosol classifier (AAC) coupled with an atomizer was used to generate monodisperse dioctyl phthalate particles with a condensation particle counter (CPC) as the reference instrument. This method is accurate for capturing the counting efficiency of OPCs at lower size ranges and determining the cutoff diameter. The CPC was found to be a poor reference instrument for particles larger than 1 µm in which case an inkjet aerosol generator (IAG) was used as the monodisperse particle source and reference instrument. Two different particle materials were used with the IAG: lactose monohydrate and an ionic liquid (1-ethyl-3-methylimidazolium trifluoromethanesulfonate). A combination of the AAC to size smaller particles (<1 µm) and IAG to generate larger particles (>1 µm) was found to provide a comprehensive method capable of covering the counting efficiency over the entire operating range of OPCs.Copyright © 2020 American Association for Aerosol Research
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".