Aerosol Science & Technology

ISSN: 0278-6826 (Print) 1521-7388 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uast20

Design and Calibration of the EPA PM2.5 Well

Impactor Ninety-Six (WINS)

Thomas M. Peters , Robert W. Vanderpool & Russell W. Wiener

To cite this article: Thomas M. Peters , Robert W. Vanderpool & Russell W. Wiener (2001) Design
and Calibration of the EPA PM2.5 Well Impactor Ninety-Six (WINS), Aerosol Science & Technology,
34:5, 389-397, DOI: 10.1080/02786820120352

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820120352

Published online: 30 Nov 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2700

View related articles

Citing articles: 36 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uast20
Aerosol Science and Technology 34: 389 – 397 (2001)
c 2001 American Association for Aerosol Research
°
Published by Taylor and Francis
0278-6826 =01=$12.00 C .00
Design and Calibration of the EPA PM2:5 Well Impactor
Ninety-Six (WINS)
Thomas M. Peters,1 Robert W. Vanderpool, and Russell W. Wiener2
1 Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
2 National Exposure Research Laboratory, US EPA, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina
The EPA well impactor ninety-six (WINS) was designed and
calibrated to serve as a particle size separation device for the EPA
reference method sampler for particulate matter under 2.5 ¹m
aerodynamic diameter. The WINS was designed to operate down-
stream of a PM 10 inlet at a volumetric  ow rate of 16.7 Lpm.
For design simplicity and ease of construction, fractionation of
the aerosol in the WINS is provided by a single-stage, single-jet,
round-hole impactor. Particles >2.5 ¹m (aerodynamic diameter)
have sufŽ cient inertia to be impacted upon a circular 37 mm di-
ameter glass Ž ber Ž lter immersed in 1 mL of a low volatility oil.
The relatively large amount of oil is intended to minimize sub-
strate overloading and subsequent particle bounce experienced by
some conventional impactors and to represent an easily Ž eld dis-
pensable quantity of deŽ ned tolerance. The novel geometry of the
impaction reservoir (or well) is designed to capture any reentrained
material from the impaction surface and to prevent loss of oil should
the unit be inadvertently turned over or onto its side. The penetra-
tion curve of the Ž nal WINS design has a 50% cutpoint diameter
equal to 2.48 ¹m and a geometric standard deviation of 1.18.
During development, several nozzle designs and well geometries
were evaluated to optimize the performance of the WINS. Addition-
ally, two candidate oils (Neovac and Dow Corning 704 diffusion
pump oils) and three types of Ž lters (glass Ž ber Ž lters, drain discs,
and polycarbonate membrane Ž lters) were evaluated for use as im-
paction substrates in the WINS. The performance of the WINS was
similar for the two oils in combination with a glass Ž ber Ž lter and a
drain disc; however, a polycarbonate Ž lter demonstrated elevated
penetration values. Based on these tests, a Gelman Type A/E glass
Ž ber Ž lter immersed in Dow Corning 704 diffusion pump oil was
selected as the best impaction substrate. Further testing showed
that the penetration curve was essentially the same when operated
with quantities of oil ranging from 0.75 to 3 mL.
INTRODUCTION
On July 18, 1997, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
promulgated a new federal reference method (FRM) for
measuring ambient concentrations of particulate matter under
Received 6 May 1999; accepted 21 September 1999.
Address correspondence to Robert W. Vanderpool, Research Trian-
gle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, 27709.
2.5 ¹m (PM2:5 ) (EPA 1997). This method speciŽ es a reference
method sampler that is deŽ ned by design and performance re-
quirements, set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
Detailed design and fabrication speciŽ cations, freely available to
any manufacturer, are presented in 40 CFR Part 50, Appendix L
describing all components through which the aerosol passes: in-
let, downtube, PM2:5 separator, upper portion of the Ž lter holder,
and Ž lter cassette.
The design goals for the internal separation of PM2:5 in the
FRM sampler were as follows:
² operate at 16.7 actual liters per minute (aLpm) down-
stream of the Graseby-Andersen 246B PM10 inlet,
² require a single air ow control and measurement
system,
² possess a design which is easy and inexpensive to man-
ufacture and simple to operate,
² require no moving parts during sampling,
² provide a unit that is easy to maintain,
² require no maintenance over multiple days,
² provide sustained operation at high loadings, and
² provide separation of the aerosol by inertia with sep-
aration characteristics such that 50% of the particles
below 2.5 ¹m in aerodynamic diameter penetrate to
the sample collection Ž lter (D50 ) and have a shape de-
scribed by a geometric standard deviation (GSD) of
<1.2 (Price 1996).
The GSD is calculated as the square root of the particle diameter
associated with 16% penetration (D16 ) divided by the particle
diameter associated with 84% penetration (D84 ).
Devices that provide inertial separation of aerosols are well
documented to include virtual impactors, cyclones, and conven-
tional impactors. The dichotomous virtual impactor (Loo and
Cork 1988) has been the benchmark method for collecting Ž ne
and coarse mode aerosol in the atmosphere for many years. The
virtual impactor is dependent upon two air ows and was there-
fore eliminated from consideration due to design complexity
issues.
389
390 T. M. PETERS ET AL.

The loading characteristics of a cyclone, where relatively substrate, thereby resulting in reduced efŽ ciency (or increased
large quantities of coarse aerosol may be deposited in a col- penetration) after a period of operation.
lection cup without reentrainment, makes the cyclone a favor- The well impactor ninety-six (WINS) was developed to pro-
able method of aerosol separation. John and Reischl (1980) pre- vide an impactor that met the FRM design goals and to provide
sented a cyclone now used for collecting Ž ne particulate mass an aerosol separator that could be used in the National Air Mon-
in the National Park’s IMPROVE sampling network that op- itoring Network for PM2:5 . The WINS addresses the issues of
erates at a design  ow rate of 23.1 Lpm. Cyclone design has bounce and reentrainment during extended periods of operation
been primarily empirical in nature until recently. Moore and common to conventional impactors. The primary aim of this pa-
McFarland (1990, 1993) present a model based on extensive per is to present the design, development, and evaluation of the
testing of the Stairmand family of cyclones. A second effort to WINS under clean conditions. Vanderpool et al. (2001) presents
model a family of cyclones is presented by Kenny and Gussman the behavior of this separator after sampling laboratory-created,
(1997). These modeling efforts have resulted in two cyclones coarse mode aerosol at elevated concentrations and after ex-
offering a D50 size equal to 2.5 ¹m at the desired  ow rate of tended operation in several US cities.
16.7 Lpm.
Traditional impactor designs were rejected due to their prob-
lems with particle bounce (Pak et al. 1992) and reentrainment EXPERIMENTAL METHODS
of previously deposited particles (Markowski 1984). One ap- WINS Impactor Design
proach to solving these problems has been to use an oil-soaked
The Ž nal design of the WINS, shown schematically in
sintered metal disk as the impaction substrate (Reischl and John
Figure 1, was designed to operate downstream of the Graseby-
1978). This type of surface was utilized by Marple et al. (1987)
Andersen Model 246B PM10 inlet at a volumetric  ow rate of
to reduce or eliminate particle bounce in a micro-environmental
16.7 actual Lpm. This separator consists of an upper housing,
impactor designed for indoor air studies and further utilized
an impaction reservoir (or well), and a lower housing. Separa-
in personal samplers (Marple et al. 1989). Markowski (1984)
tion of the aerosol is provided by a single-jet, round hole that is
similarly utilized two greased stages in series in a cascade im-
integral to the upper housing. A conical entrance was adopted to
pactor to reduce or eliminate artifacts caused by particle bounce
and blow-off. Turner and Herring (1987) observed that Te on
membrane Ž lters with 2 ¹L of oil could be used to reduce or
eliminate bounce. They further identiŽ ed that the viscosity of
the oil was a determining factor in whether an oil would wick up
through a pile of deposited particles (viscosity of <300 cSt) or
behave more like grease (viscosity of approximately 1000 cSt or
greater). Randtke et al. (1990) used a single-stage, single-hole
impactor with a polycarbonate Ž lter coated with 5 ¹L of sili-
cone oil as the impaction substrate to separate Ž ne particulate
for subsequent chemical analysis for species of interest in dry
deposition and acid aerosol sampling.
Further investigations into reduction of particle bounce have
focused on the modiŽ cation of the impaction surface. Biswas
and Flagan (1988) describe a particle trap impactor in which
separation of the aerosol is achieved as particles impinge upon
a stagnant cavity, thereby eliminating the need for a greased im-
paction substrate. This is a particularly desirable feature when
the particles collected above the cutpoint of the impactor are to
be analyzed for their chemical makeup. Unfortunately, the sepa-
ration characteristics of this type of impactor were observed to be
not sharp and resulted in maximum collection efŽ ciency below
100% for particles with large Stokes numbers. Tsai and Cheng
(1995) extended this concept to increase the lifetime of the im-
paction substrate for high particulate loadings. These researchers
studied a variety of impaction surface geometries coated and un-
coated with silicone grease. They identiŽ ed an inverted conical
cavity in the collection plate that was observed to alleviate parti-
cle bounce and reentrainment problems. Again, problems were
identiŽ ed after a monolayer of particles built-up on the greased Figure 1. Schematic view of the Ž nal design of the WINS.
 DESIGN AND CALIBRATION OF WINS IMPACTOR
provide a smooth transition from the inner nozzle entrance bore
to the Ž nal nozzle diameter to minimize disruption of the air
streamlines moving through the nozzle and encourage a more
uniform velocity proŽ le at the jet exit. Particles with sufŽ cient
inertia are impacted into the well upon a circular 37 mm diame-
ter glass Ž ber Ž lter immersed in 1 mL of low volatility diffusion
pump oil.
The novel geometry of the impaction reservoir (or well)
and substrate was designed to minimize overloading and sub-
sequent particle bounce-off experienced by some conventional
impactors. An oil-immersed porous surface was selected for
an impaction substrate because of the ability of an oil to wick
through previously deposited particulate and present a contin-
uously wetted surface to the incoming aerosol (Marple et al.
1987; Turner and Herring 1987). The nontraditional well-type
impaction plate geometry was designed to hold a relatively large
quantity of oil (up to 3 mL) in the impaction area even if the de-
vice is inadvertently turned on its side or even upside down.
Additionally, the well is intended to retain any blow-off from
the tip of the conical build-up that is typical after the collection
of large quantities of particulate matter with diameters above the
cutpoint of the impactor.
Conventional impactor design guidelines presented in Marple
and Rubow (1986) were closely considered during the design
of the WINS nozzle section. This reference recommends that
the ratio of the jet-to-plate distance to the nozzle width (S = W )
should be >1.0 and the jet Reynolds number should be in the
range of 500 – 3000 to achieve optimal impactor performance.
Further, altering the number of nozzles and nozzle width can
control the jet Reynolds number for a given  ow rate. Marple
and Willeke (1976) suggest that the throat length to nozzle width
ratio (T = W ) should be >1.0 to provide sufŽ cient time for the
particles to accelerate to the  uid velocity and, if possible, the
entrance of the nozzle should be tapered or conical.
The well geometry of the impaction surface that was adopted
for use in this design led to the use of a nonstandard nozzle
design. A single-hole nozzle was viewed as favorable due to
the relative ease of construction, adaptation to the well geome-
try, and lesser propensity to clog. Unfortunately, it is necessary
to operate a single nozzle outside the recommended Reynolds
number upper limit of 3000 to achieve a D50 size equal to 2.5 ¹m
(a Reynolds number of approximately 5500 – 6000 is required to
achieve this separation).
Figure 2 displays several prototype upper housing designs
that were evaluated to investigate the in uence of nozzle de-
sign on separation characteristics. The critical parameters of
each of these prototype designs and the Ž nal design of the
WINS are presented in Table 1. Figure 2a presents the long-
throat prototype nozzle. The well impaction surface required
use of a nozzle with an unusually long throat length, T D 2:5
cm. This design had a nozzle width of 0.452 cm, a T = W ratio
equal to 5.5, a S = W ratio of approximately 1.8, and a Reynolds
number of 5200. A second nozzle, the bored WINS (shown in
Figure 2b) was constructed to evaluate the effect of a reduced
391
throat length on separation characteristics. The T = W ratio was
reduced from 5.5 to 1.2 in this design. A third nozzle design,
the three-hole WINS, was constructed to elucidate the effect
of reduced Reynolds number operation on the nozzle design.
In this design, the central bore culminated in three holes of
W D 0:300 cm to yield a Reynolds number of 2600. Addition-
ally, reduced jet velocity of the three-hole design was believed
to reduce particle bounce. The Ž nal design of the WINS has a
nozzle width equal to 0.391 cm to yield a Reynolds number of
6000 at a design  ow rate of 16.7 Lpm. The jet-to-plate dis-
tance was selected to yield an S = W ratio of 3.1 to minimize
interaction between the impactor air jet and the potential con-
ical build-up of particles on the impaction surface. The throat
length, T D 0:61 cm, was kept short in relation to the jet width
(T = W D 1:6).
The nonstandard shape of the well presented additional op-
portunity for particle collection on the walls of the well and the
antispill ring. Three conŽ gurations were used in the develop-
ment of the WINS: a relatively small well with a diameter of
3.0 cm, a larger well with a diameter of 3.7 cm, and a  at plate.
During the initial phases of development, an oil (Dow Corning
704 diffusion pump oil) saturated glass Ž ber Ž lter was used as
the impaction substrate for most of the tests. Alternatively, alu-
minum surfaces were coated with Apiezon grease to elucidate
the effects of surface roughness of the glass Ž ber Ž lter on sepa-
rator characteristics.
Evaluation of the WINS Impaction Substrate
Two oils and three Ž lters were selected following a limited
survey of available oil and Ž lter candidates. The criteria for se-
lection of the oil were reasonable cost, low vapor pressure to
minimize volatilization, and a viscosity great enough to prevent
migration from the well while maintaining the ability to wick
through the particulate deposit. Selection of the oil was lim-
ited to diffusion pump oils because of their low vapor pressures
(typically <10¡7 torr at 20± C).
The two diffusion pump oils selected as the candidate oils
were Neovac (P/N 4120-K6948-301 , Varian Vacuum Products,
Woburn, MA) and Dow Corning 704 (P/N 704 diffusion pump
oil, Dow Corning Corporation, Midland, MI). Table 2 shows
that these two single-component oils have similar characteris-
tics with the exception of composition. The Neovac oil is hydro-
carbon based, while the Dow Corning 704 oil is silicon based.
The estimated cost per mL (the oil required in the well of the
WINS) is 8 cents and 17 cents for the Neovac and Dow Corning
oils, respectively. The viscosity of the oils under consideration
is 25 cSt at 40± C and 39 cSt at 25± C for the Neovac and Dow
Corning 704 oils, respectively. These values fall into the lower
end of the oil viscosity range (30– 300 cSt) tested by Turner and
Hering (1987); therefore they are expected to behave in a desir-
able manner in that they can be wicked up into the particulate
deposits.
The selection criteria for the Ž lter were modest cost, the abil-
ity to wick the selected oil into the central region of the Ž lter,
392 T. M. PETERS ET AL.

Figure 2. Prototype nozzles tested: (a) the long-throat nozzle, (b) the bored nozzle, and (c) the three-hole nozzle.

and the ability to maintain structural integrity when immersed in
oil. Table 3 displays the vendor and other pertinent information
for the candidate Ž lters selected for this series of experiments.
Glass Ž ber Ž lters were selected because of the relatively low
cost and dense Ž ber weave that can easily retain oil. Two  atter
Ž lter media were selected as candidates because of the possibil-
ity that the surface features of glass Ž ber Ž lters could affect the
penetration for particle sizes below the cutpoint of the impactor.
Nuclepore polycarbonate membrane Ž lters were selected be-
cause they offer an extremely  at surface, but at a signiŽ cantly
higher cost (66 cents each as compared to 14 cents each for
glass Ž ber Ž lters). Drain discs, a medium typically used under
membrane Ž lters to provide mechanical support and to improve
the spatial uniformity of particulate matter deposits, were se-
lected as the third candidate due to their  at surface (more like
the Nuclepore Ž lter) and more porous polyester weave. Porous
sintered metal was considered as an alternative for the Ž lter
media; however, it was eliminated from consideration because
 DESIGN AND CALIBRATION OF WINS IMPACTOR 393

Table 1 Table 3
Critical dimensions of impactors tested Critical parameters of Ž lters tested

Throat Jet-to-plate Nozzle Glass Ž ber Nuclepore Drain disc

length; distance; width; Jet;
ConŽ guration T , cm S, cm W , cm S = W T = W Re Vendor Gelmana Costar Corp. Costar Corp.
Catalog or Type A/E cat # 1108110 cat # 231100
Long-throat 2.5 0.80 0.452 1.8 5.5 5200 model no.
WINS Composition Glass Ž ber
Polycarbonate Spun-bonde d
Bored WINS 0.56 0.80 0.452 1.8 1.2 5200 membrane polyester
3-Hole WINS 0.38 0.44 0.300 1.5 1.3 2600 Pore size, ¹m 1.0 1.0 Not available
Final WINS 0.61 1.22 0.391 3.1 1.6 6000 Thickness, ¹m 457 10 Not available
Qualities Dense weave Flat, featureless Flat, thin,
of the difŽ culties associated with periodic cleaning of such a of Ž bers surface porous
surface. Approx. price $0.14 $0.66 $0.36
A qualitative evaluation of each candidate oil and Ž lter com- each
bination was performed by visually inspecting the movement of a
Whatman type 934AH is an equivalent media.
the oils in the well as a jet of air impinged on the surface of
the impaction substrate. The jet diameter was roughly equiva- 1.35 g/cm3 . The number concentration of the primary particles
lent to the WINS impaction nozzle, 1 mL of oil was used in all downstream and upstream of the separation device was mea-
cases, and the air ow was metered at 16.7 aLpm. Measurement sured with an Aerosizer (MN Aerosizer LD, API, Amherst, MA).
of the penetration curve for each oil/Ž lter combination in the The Aerosizer was used to verify the aerodynamic particle size
Ž nal design WINS provided a more quantitative assessment of distribution of the challenge aerosol as well. Penetration for a
each candidate. given size was calculated by dividing the number concentration
of the primary particles penetrating through the separator by that
Evaluation of the WINS with Various Oil Quantities bypassing the separator. An entire penetration curve was then
developed by stepping through discrete particle sizes until an
The WINS is speciŽ ed to operate with a glass Ž ber Ž lter and
adequate number of sizes were evaluated to describe the D50
1 mL of oil. The performance of the Ž nal design WINS was
and GSD of the separator.
evaluated at 0.5, 0.75, 1.0, and 3.0 mL oil quantities to deter-
It should be noted that this method correctly accounts for par-
mine a range over which similar performance can be expected.
tial impactor jet and interstage losses and thus characterizes the
Additionally, the performance of the WINS was evaluated with
performance of the entire separator. Validation of this technique
no oil (0.0 mL) and with no Ž lter present.
was achieved by comparing penetration measurements made
with the Aerosizer to those made by collecting ammonium  u-
Measurement of Separator Characteristics orescein aerosol onto glass Ž ber Ž lters followed by subsequent
Penetration measurements were performed with the static  uorometric analysis (Peters et al. 2001). Development and eval-
testing apparatus and procedures presented in Peters et al. (2001). uation of the WINS was performed using ammonium  uores-
Brie y, this protocol involved challenging the separator with cein. During this development process, a more rapid manner of
either monodispersed aerosol created with a vibrating oriŽ ce evaluating separator performance was adopted by using suspen-
aerosol generator (VOAG, TSI, Inc., St. Paul, MN) or by nebuliz- sions containing multiple sizes of PSL spheres. The time for
ing solutions containing polystyrene latex (PSL) microspheres measuring a single penetration curve was reduced from a week,
with a density of 1.05 g/cm3 . The VOAG aerosols were com- using VOAG aerosols, to fewer than 2 h by using PSL aerosols,
posed of solid ammonium  uorescein with a known density of thereby increasing the number of substrate conŽ gurations that

Table 2
Critical parameters of oils tested

Neovac Dow Corning 704

Vendor Matsumura Oil Research Corp. Dow Corning
Viscosity, cSt 25 @ 40± C 39 @ 25± C
Vapor pressure, torr 1 £ 10¡8 @ 25± C 2 £ 10¡8 @ 25± C
Composition Hydrocarbon (mono-N-alkyldiphenylether ) Single-component silicon
(tetramethyltetraphenyltrisiloxane )
Cost per impactor oil change 8 cents 17 cents
394 T. M. PETERS ET AL.

could be tested. For this reason, the evaluation of Ž lter and oil
substrate candidates and the operation at various oil levels was
performed using PSL aerosol.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Development of the WINS
Figure 3 displays the percent penetration versus aerodynamic
diameter for selected conŽ gurations. Figure 4 displays the same
selected conŽ gurations expressed as a penetration in percent ver-
sus the aerodynamic diameter divided by the cutpoint diameter.
This Ž gure is useful for penetration slope comparison. Table 4
presents the D50 , D84 , D16 , and GSD for each conŽ guration
tested.
The long-throat WINS design, with a 3.0 cm well, possessed
a cutpoint diameter of 2.55 ¹m and a GSD of 1.24. Operating
this nozzle design with a  at greased plate as the impaction
surface identiŽ ed that losses occurred in the small 3.0 cm well
because the cutpoint shifted upward from 2.55 ¹m to 3.05 ¹m.
The penetration curve became somewhat sharper, resulting in a
reduction in the GSD from 1.24 to 1.22.
The bored nozzle, possessing a T = W of 1.2 as opposed to 5.5
in the long-throat design, had a GSD equal to 1.14 when operated
with a  at greased plate. This demonstrates that an upper limit
on T = W should be established in the design criteria established
by Marple and Rubow (1986). It was conjectured that the long
throat length encourages the development of a large boundary
layer at the nozzle walls where the air and particles would have
lower velocities than in the center of the jet. This being the
case, the differing velocities would give the particles different
momentum and result in a nonsharp cut.
Figure 3. Penetration versus aerodynamic diameter for se-
lected tests conducted during WINS development.
Figure 4. Penetration versus aerodynamic diameter divided
by the cutpoint size for selected tests conducted during WINS
development.
With greased wells, the measured GSD for the bored WINS
nozzle was 1.21 and 1.18 for the 3.0 cm well and the 3.7 cm
well, respectively. This indicates that the presence of the well
does have an impact on the shape of the penetration curve; how-
ever, enlarging the diameter of the well reduced the effect. The
well modiŽ es the air ow patterns as compared to an ideal,  at-
plate impactor and thereby presents additional opportunities for
particle collection. Figure 4 shows that the greased  at plate
demonstrated similar collection characteristics, above the cut-
point, to the large diameter well. Therefore it is conjectured that
the wall effect is no longer a factor for the larger well and that
deviation from ideal performance, for particles above the cut-
point, is likely due solely to the Reynolds number being greater
than the ideal 500 – 3000 range.
The GSD with the oil and a glass Ž ber Ž lter impaction sub-
strate was greater than with a greased surface in all cases exclud-
ing the small diameter well. Close examination of Figure 4 shows
that the presence of the Ž lter slightly lowers the penetration curve
for particle sizes smaller than the D50 of the impactor and hence
the GSD is increased. It is believed that the surface roughness
of the glass Ž ber Ž lter media may be the cause of this effect.
The three hole WINS nozzle showed extremely high GSD
values for both a  at greased plate (GSD D 1.30) and a small
well with an oil/Ž lter surface (GSD D 1.32). The deposits of the
particles directly under the impaction nozzle were observed to
be irregular in shape, indicating that the nozzles were likely too
closely spaced and thus resulting in jet interaction. The multiple
hole design was abandoned because of the increased complexity
of multiple-hole construction and the incompatibility with the
well design.
 DESIGN AND CALIBRATION OF WINS IMPACTOR 395

Table 4 Table 5
Summary of results of testing various WINS designs Equation (1) parameters of the best-Ž t curve
and conŽ gurations for the Ž nal design of the WINS

ConŽ guration D50 , ¹m D84 , ¹m D16 , ¹m GSD Curve parameter WINS

Long-throat WINS a 1.001
(3.0 cm well) b ¡1.001
Oil/Ž lter in well 2.55 2.05 3.15 1.24 c 2.48
Flat greased plate 3.05 2.55 3.8 1.22 d 0.3093
Bored WINS e 3.3683
greased surface:
Flat plate 3.2 2.75 3.55 1.14
A reverse asymmetric sigmoid equation was selected from nu-
3.0 cm well 2.8 2.4 3.5 1.21
merous equations based on the sum of the squares, R 2 , as our Ž t
3.7 cm well 3.0 2.6 3.6 1.18
analysis criteria. This equation is expressed as
Oil with glass
Ž ber Ž lter: " " Á¡ ¡ 1 ¢ ¢ !#¡e #
x C d ln 2 e ¡ 1 ¡ c
Flat plate 2.8 2.45 3.5 1.20 y D a C b 1 ¡ 1 C exp ;
3.0 cm well 2.7 2.2 3.2 1.21 d
3.7 cm well 2.9 2.35 3.35 1.19 [1]
Three-hole WINS
Flat greased plate 2.4 1.8 3.05 1.30 where y is the penetration represented as a fraction of one, x is
Oil/Ž lter in well 2.3 1.65 2.9 1.32 particle aerodynamic diameter, and a – e are curve parameters.
Final WINS design 2.48 2.05 2.85 1.18 Although simpler algorithms have been found to Ž t symmetrical
penetration curves adequately, they do not Ž t nonsymmetrical
performance curves as well as the function provided by Equation
Evaluation of the Final Version of the WINS (1). Table 5 presents the equation parameters for the best-Ž t
The Ž nal design of the WINS was designed using the results curve for the WINS.
from the prototype nozzle tests. Figure 5 displays the penetra- Based on this best-Ž t curve through the experimental data,
tion curve for the Ž nal WINS design. TableCurve 2D (a computer the Ž nal design of the WINS has a D50 cut-size of 2.48 ¹m and
software program for Ž tting curves to experimental data, Jandel a GSD of 1.18. This is in good agreement with the theoretical
ScientiŽ c Software, San Rafael, CA) was used to Ž t the exper- cutpoint of this design, D50 D 2:40 ¹m, which was calculated
imental data with a best-Ž t curve (Maynard and Kenny 1995). using the impaction theory presented by Marple and Willeke
(1976) (a 50% square root of a Stokes number of 0.475 was
used in this calculation). Further, the fact that the experimentally
determined cut-size is somewhat larger than that calculated from
theory supports the supposition that the larger diameter well does
not interfere with the separation characteristics of this WINS
Ž nal design.

Evaluation of WINS Impaction Substrate

Figure 5. Evaluation of the Ž nal version of the WINS.
There was no visible difference in the behavior of the two oils;
however, the Ž lter media had an effect on the retention of the oil.
The dense weave of the glass Ž ber Ž lter retained the bulk of the
oil in the center of the well, with a slight ring of excess oil pushed
to the edge of the Ž lter by the force of the impinging air jet. The
drain disc demonstrated similar dynamic qualities, but with a
larger quantity of excess oil due to the lower retention qualities
associated with this media. The Nuclepore Ž lter appeared to have
an even lower holding capacity with a more pronounce d ring of
oil with the visible oil cleared from the surface of the Ž lter.
Figure 6 displays the effect of the various impaction sub-
strates on the shape of the penetration curve of the WINS. There
was no consistent difference observed between the two oils.
The drain disc and the glass Ž ber Ž lter also behaved with no
396 T. M. PETERS ET AL.
Figure 6. Performance evaluation of candidate oils and Ž lters
for use as an impaction surface in the Ž nal WINS.
noticeable differences. The only observable difference in sub-
strate performance was detected for the Nucleopore Ž lter. The
penetration measured with this media was consistently greater
than that measured with the other Ž lters. From this experi-
ment, it was decided that a glass Ž ber Ž lter immersed in Dow
Corning 704 diffusion pump oil was an acceptable choice of
substrates.
Figure 7. Performance of the WINS for various oil quantities.
Operation of the WINS at Various Oil Quantities
Figure 7 displays the performance of the WINS at various
quantities of oil in the well. The penetration of 3.4 ¹m PSL
particles is increased dramatically from approximately 4% to
28% for 0.75 mL oil and 0.0 mL with no Ž lter, respectively.
This is likely due to the PSL particles bouncing off the alu-
minum surface, being reentrained into the airstream, and sub-
sequently carried to the detector. WINS performance was less
sharp when operated with 0.5 mL oil, possibly due to an in-
creased effect of surface roughness at this lower oil quantity.
The performance of the WINS was essentially identical for 0.75,
1.0, and 3.0 mL.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The WINS impactor was designed and calibrated to serve as a
particle size separation device for the FRM for PM2:5 . For design
simplicity and ease of construction, fractionation of the aerosol
is provided by a single-stage, single-jet, round-hole impactor.
Particles >2.5 ¹m have sufŽ cient inertia to be impacted upon a
circular 3.7 cm diameter glass Ž ber Ž lter which is immersed in
1 mL of a low volatility oil. The relatively large amount of oil
is intended to minimize substrate overloading and subsequent
particle bounce experienced by some conventional impactors
(refer to Vanderpool et al. (2001) for more information). The
novel geometry of the impaction reservoir (or well) is designed
to capture any reentrained material from the impaction surface
and to prevent loss of oil should the unit be inadvertently turned
over or onto its side.
The nonstandard geometry of the long-throat prototype
WINS led to a rather shallow separation curve. Several addi-
tional prototype nozzles and wells of varying sizes were used
to demonstrate that a combination of nozzle throat length, well
size, and surface roughness of the glass Ž ber Ž lter caused the
deviation from the ideal case. As a result, the Ž nal WINS used
a nozzle possessing a throat-to-nozzle width of 1.2 and the well
size was increased from 3.0 cm to 3.7 cm. Additional testing of
 atter impaction substrates revealed that the glass Ž ber mat pos-
sesses desirable oil retention characteristics and was therefore
maintained as the impaction substrate. The Ž nal WINS design
was shown to have a cutpoint of 2.48 ¹m with a GSD of 1.18.
This design meets all speciŽ ed design objectives and should thus
serve as an effective particle size separator during conditions of
its intended Ž eld use.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors gratefully acknowledge the valuable comments
provided by Mr. Robert Gussman of BGI, Inc. and Dr. Dale
Lundgren of the University of Florida during the development
of the WINS.
This work was conducted by Research Triangle Institute with
support provided by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
through contract no. 68-D5-0040 . It has been reviewed in accor-
dance with the Agency’s peer and administrative review policies
 DESIGN AND CALIBRATION OF WINS IMPACTOR
and approved for presentation and publication. Mention of trade
names or commercial products does not constitute endorsement
or recommendation by RTI or the Agency.
REFERENCES
Biswas, P., and Flagan, R. C. (1988). The Particle Trap Impactor, J. Aerosol Sci.
19:113 – 121.
EPA. (1997). National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter;
Final Rule, Federal Register, Vol. 62, No. 138, July 18, 1997, pp. 38651 –
38752.
John, W., and Reischl, G. (1980). A Cyclone for Size-Selective Sampling of
Ambient Air, JAPCA 30:872 – 876.
Kenny, L. C., and Gussman, R. A. (1997). Characterization and Modelling of a
Family of Cyclone Aerosol Preseparators, J. Aerosol Sci. 28:677 – 688.
Loo, B. W., and Cork, C. P. (1988). Development of High EfŽ ciency Virtual
Impactors, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 9:167 – 176.
Markowski, G. R. (1984). Reducing Blowoff in Cascade Impactor Measure-
ments, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 3:431 – 439.
Marple, V. A., Liu, B., Behm, S., Olson, B., and Wiener, R. (1989). A Personal
Environmental Monitor (PEM). Presented at The American Association for
Aerosol Research Annual Meeting, October 10 – 13, 1989, Reno, NV.
Marple, V. A., and Rubow, K. L. (1986). Theory and Design Guidelines. In
Cascade Impactor, edited by J. P. Lodge, Jr. and T. L. Chan. American Indus-
trial Hygiene Association, Akron, OH, pp. 79 – 101.
Marple, V. A., Rubow, K. L., Turner, W., and Spengler, J. D. (1987). Low Flow
Rate Sharp Cut Impactors for Indoor Air Sampling: Design and Calibration,
JAPCA 37:1303 – 1307.
Marple, V. A., and Willeke, K. (1976). Impactor Design, Atmos. Environ.
10:891 – 896.
397
Maynard, A. D., and Kenny, L. C. (1995). Performance Assessment of Three
Personal Cyclone Models, Using an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer, J. Aerosol
Sci. 26:671 – 684.
Moore, M. E., and McFarland, A. R. (1990). Design of Stairmand-Type Sampling
Cyclones, Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 51:151 – 159.
Moore, M. E., and McFarland, A. R. (1993). Performance Modeling of
Single-Inlet Aerosol Sampling Cyclones, Environ. Sci. Technol. 27:1842 –
1848.
Pak, S. S., Liu, B. Y. H., and Rubow, K. L. (1992). Effect of Coating Thick-
ness on Particle Bounce in Inertial Impactors, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 16:141 –
150.
Peters, T. M., Vanderpool, R. W., and Wiener, R. W. (2001). Methodology for
Measuring PM2:5 Separator Characteristics Using an Aerosizer, Aerosol Sci.
Technol. 34(5):398 – 406.
Price, J. H. (1996). Letter to Dr. George T. Wolff, Chair, Clean Air ScientiŽ c
Advisory Committee Regarding Reopt of the Clean Air ScientiŽ c Advisory
Committee (CASAC) Technical Subcommittee for Fine Particulate Monitor-
ing, August 1, 1996.
Randtke, S. J., Lane, D. D., and Baxter, T. E. (1990). Developmen t of a Sampling
Procedure for Large Nitrogen- and Sulfur-Bearing Aerosols, EPA/600/S3-
90/048.
Reischl, G. P., and John, W. (1978). The Collection EfŽ ciency of Impaction
Surfaces: A New Impaction Surface. Staub-Reinhalt, Luft 38 – 55.
Tsai, C. J., and Cheng, Y. H. (1995). Solid Particle Collection Characteristics on
Impaction Surfaces of Different Designs, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 23:96 – 106.
Turner, J. R., and Hering, S. V. (1987). Greased and Oiled Substrates as Bounce-
Free Impaction Surfaces, J. Aerosol Sci. 18:215 – 224.
Vanderpool, R. W., Peters, T. M., Natarajan, S., Gemmill, D. B., and Wiener,
R. W. (2001). Evaluation of the Loading Characteristics of the EPA WINS
PM2:5 Separator, Aerosol Sci. Technol. 34(5):444 – 456.