Relating the ultrasonic and aerosol filtration properties of filters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Non-contact methods are useful to improve the quality control of particle filtration media. The purpose of this paper is to investigate the correlation between the filtration efficiency of a porous sheet and its ultrasonic properties obtained using a non-contact technique. An air-coupled ultrasonic technique is used to obtain rapid measurements without affecting the integrity of the material. High frequencies (from 0.1 to 2.5 MHz) are used to improve technique sensitivity, and transmitted waves are measured to probe the internal properties of the material. Measurements of transmission coefficient spectra (amplitude and phase) and the corresponding ultrasound velocity and attenuation coefficient at different frequencies are obtained for a set of filtration media with well-characterized properties. Results show that the ultrasonic properties of filtration media vary as a function of basis weight, and therefore filtration efficiency, for a given charge state. However, the effect of electrostatic charge on ultrasonic propagation is almost negligible, as expected. We conclude that ultrasonic transmission may provide a valuable tool for the continuous online monitoring of material quality during fabrication and as a method to tease apart mechanical and electrostatic contributions to particle filtration.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".