Ammpherrc Environment Vol I’). No 3, pp. 539-542. 1985 Oco4-6981/85$3.00 + 0.

00
Printedin Great Britain 0 1985 Pergamon Press Ltd.

EVALUATION OF THE SIERRA-ANDERSEN lo-pm INLET FOR THE HIGH-VOLUME SAMPLER

James B. Wedding, Michael A. Weigand and Young J. Kim

Aerosol Science Laboratory
Wedding & Associates, Inc., P.O. Box 1756, Fort Collins, CO 80524
(Received for publication 4 January 1985)

Abstract - Wind tunnel and field tests were conducted on the Sierra-AndersenModel 321-A
nominal 10 pm inlet for the High-Volume Sampler. In the wind tunnel, the inlet displayed sub-
stantial sensitivity to wind velocity, particularly with respect to serious oversampling at
high wind speeds. The unit displays continuing problems of solid particle bounce which were
decreased in the field by coating the collecting surfaces with oil. This performance raises
questions, both about the adequacy of the sampler and of the test protocol presently Pre-
scribed by EPA, which would fail to detect these problems.
INTRODUCTION
A previous paper, (Wedding and Weigand, 1985) described tests on the Wedding lo-pm inlet
for the High-Volume Sampler, as well as the rationale for these tests. We have also tested
the chief alternative to the Wedding inlet, the Sierra-AndersenModel 321-A two-stage inlet.
In addition to the tests called for by the proposed test protocol, additional tests
-1
were run at a wind velocity of 48 km h , a wind velocity frequently encountered in many
parts of the U.S.
PERFORMANCE TESTS
This unit was tested in parallel fashion with the Wedding inlet, and the same test proto-
col, wind tunnel, and test characteristicswere used throughout, to provide maximum compar-
ability. A single unit was also operated in the field (Ft. Collins, CO) at the same location
as the sampler with the Wedding inlet and a High-Volume Sampler. A second set of inlets was
subsequently collocated. The second SA 321-A unit had the impaction surfaces of the inlet
coated with a low viscosity oil, to test the hypothesis that the sampler was sustaining some
resuspension and entrainment of coarse particles.
Theory of Sampling Effectiveness - Shown in Fig. 1, in conjunction with performance
curves generated at the FRM required wind speeds of 2, 8 and 24 km h-l, are data obtained with
-1
the SA 321-A at a wind speed of 48 km h . The solid line depicted on the figure for 48 km h-l
is a curve derived from theory for the SA 321-A. The curve results from published isokinetic
-1
sampling/enrichmenttheory and the 2 km h curve.
Particles captured by an inlet derive from two sources: (1) Air drawn directly into the
housing and (2) an enrichment fraction from air diverted around the housing which is a function
of the anisokinetic sampling ratio, fluid energy, particle size and other effects such as
electrostatic charge, turbulence and sampler geometry. Davies (1968) has shown that an equa-
tion for sub-isokinetic sampling may be given as

EH=l+[;-l] (1-A)

where EH is the sub-isokinetic sampling correction factor, Y is the particle Stokes number, U
A
is the ambient wind and US is the sampling velocity. The effectiveness of the entire inlet
system would then be the product of EH and the system effectiveness under isokinetic condi-
tions. Note that the equation has been corrected for a typographical.
error in the original
paper.
-1
The 2 km h SA 321-A performance curve was selected as the reference effectiveness
curve because it represents near-isokinetic sampling for the SA 321-A housing. The sampling
velocity at the entrance to that portion of the SA 321-A housing that collects incoming

539
540 JAMES B. WEDDING et cd.

-1 -1
particles is 57.76 cm a , which is 104.0 % of the ambient wind speed of 2 km h
(55.56 cm s-1).
RESULTS
Wind Tunnel Testing of Sierra-AndersenModel 321-A Inlet - Figure 1 illustrates the
completed effectiveness cnrvas for the Sierra-AndersenModel 321-A Inlet (SA 321-A). The
-1
values are 6.50, 9.10 and 10.05 pm for wind speeds of 2, 8 and 24 km h , respectively.
D50
Included in Figure 1 are the results of testing the SA 321-A at a wind speed of 48 km h-l.
The latter curve shows substantial enrichment of particles from 1 to 11.5 ~.rrn,
a dramatlc
change in the performance curve overall revealing collection of particles up to approximately
100 urn,and a D50 of 21.50 pm at 48 km h-l.

Fig. 1. Performance curve for

the Sierra-Andersen
321-A sampler.

As seen, the theory and experiment for 48 km h-l are in excellent agreement up to a
particle size of 83 pm, the largest size used in the wind tunnel tests. The SA 321-A samples
-1
sub-isokineticallyat -all wind speeds greater than 2 km h . The system captures particles
-I
that enrich the housing with increasing mass levels as the wind speed increases from 2 km h .
The housing acts as a relaxation chamber with sufficient inlet efficiency and large dimensions
to provide more than adequate stopping distances for particles of large size. For example,
the stopping distance of a 50-urnparticle at 48 km h-1 is approximately 10 cm. Three such
distances may be required to fully relax the particle considering the drag from combined
effects of the vacuum source and the reduced air velocities within the chamber, Note that the
inside diameter of the SA 321-A entrance chamber is greater than 50 cm, allowing the potential
capture of very large particles at high ambient wind speeds.
 The SA 32X-~ sampler was tested wfth 20 urnsolid particles, as specified in the PRK
Penetration was not significant, in contrast to the results of the field tests discussed below.
both the cutpoint and the oversampling at high wind speeds make this sampler s poor choice for
PM-IO sampling, fn addition to the apparent problem of particle bounce revealed by the field
tests,
Field Tests - In the field, samplers equipped with the SA 321-h fn&?Cxt cdl&ted mxe
mass than collocated Wedding inlets. To investigate the hypothesis that a&id particles pass-
through might be contributing to the higher collection, the collection surfaces were coated
with oil. When the Sierra-Andersen sampler was treated with oil to retard the entrainment,
this excess colLection with respect to collocated Wedding Inlets did not disappear, but was
reduced fram 62.5 to 32.6 %. Microscopic examination of filters from SA smplers without oil,
collocated with Wedding and High-Volume samplers on days when winds varied from 0 to 60 km h-l,
showed particles with estimated aerodynamic diameters as large as SO urn.
To further investigate the continuing differences in mass collected, a second series oE
field tests were performed. 3n these tests, the 321-A semp*terwas elevated so that the &&et
opening wae at the same height above the ground as the Wedding inlet opening. On the mmrage,
collocated, non-oil-coated SA 321-A inlets collected only 21.5 % more than the Wedding inJets,
while the oil-coated SA inXat collected only 8.42 % more than did the Weddhg inlets. The
latter value, attributable to enrichment, will increase with commensurate increases in w&no
speed and percent of coarse fractfon mass.
These results are summarized graphicaXXy in Ffg. 2. It can be seen that the two samplers
converge toward the line of equal sample collection with the addition of oLJ,to the SA 321-A

C~cENr~Ario~ VALUES,

COLLOCATED ‘MOOING APT5

SA 321 -A PM,, INLETS a 0

WEOOINQ tit ASSOCIATESINC.

COLLECTION

INLET OPEIUING HEIQM T

WEDOING VS SA INLET
0 321-A W/OIL AT SAME HEIGHT
AT SAME HELGHT

32f-A {EPA @U-A. PHOENIX SITE 1

Fig* 2. ~~UQWE~SO~ of collected mass concentration valuea for

Wedding and SA 321-A PM-l0 inlets.
542 JAMES B. WEDDING et al

collection plates and with sampling at the same inlet opening height. Also plotted for
reference are mass concentration values from an EPA field intercomparison study in Phoenix,
AZ. Note, however, that the data begin to diverge at higher concentration levels, indicating
that enrichment is occurring.
In the absence of an oil coating on the impaction surfaces, in addition to the dynamic
enrichment and solid particle pass-through noted, the possibility exists that handling, such
as opening and closing the top to change filters, could loosen particulate matter that would
subsequently be carried through the system. This will be a potential problem with any sampl-
ing device in which the particles enter through the top and gravitate downward. Also, since
the SA 321-A does not contain an insect screen, samples collected with this intake contained
large numbers of insects, which results in questionable sample integrity.
CONCLUSIONS
Heretofore, the various manifestations of anomalous behavior by the Sierra-Andersen
inlets made it difficult to understand the sizable excess collected mass compared with
the Wedding inlets to the high-volume sampler. All of the factors discovered, with the ex-
ception of the measured cutpoint at lower wind speeds, tend to increase collected mass. The
FRM values are very close to, or less than, those of the Wedding inlet. The possible severe
consequences of the oversampling phenomenon observed for wind speeds exceeding the FRM
-1
upper limit of 24 km h-l, such as the presented 48 km h curve, require further study to
assess accurately the full impact on ambient monitoring strategies and collected mass. How-
ever, the magnitude of the excess mass collected in the field is now clearly understandable
in the light of these findings. We conclude that the SA 321-A cannot provide concentration
levels that are meaningful without using a self regenerating oil surface on the collection
plates and that the enrichment observed presents an unsolvable design flaw
It is clear that the differences in performance between the two samplers are not pre-
dicted by the test protocols presently recommended by EPA. The body of acceptance tests for
samplers obviously needs to be expanded to include: (1) higher wind speeds to ensure that
enrichment does not occur; (2) a greater number of particle sizes and a complete effectiveness
curve for solid particles, conceivably including particle sizes markedly larger than twice
the D50, and perhaps well beyond the D
0'
In the conduct of field studies it is difficult to ensure that each sampler is exposed
to the same size distribution as other samplers. As a substantial difference in collected
mass results from sampling at different heights, this effect must carefully be considered
when planning monitoring strategies.
Acknowledgments: - This work was partially supported by the American Iron and Steel Institute.
Earlier work, FRM development, and testing protocol perfection were supported by United
States Environmental Protection Agency cooperative agreement nos: 807753, 806491, 808001101,
and 80801102.
REFERENCES
Davies, C. N. (1968) The Sampling of Aerosol. Staub - Reinhalt. Luft (English ed.)
28, [6], l-9.
Wedding, J. B. and Weigand, M. A. (1985). The Wedding Ambient Aerosol Sampling Inlet

(D50 = 10 ?-m)for the High-Volume Sampler, Atmospheric Environment, 19,535_538.