Filter quality factors of fibrous filters with different fiber diameter

Figures & data

Table 1. Summary of fabrication parameters in previous studies.

References	Polymer Material	Filter	Fiber diameter (nm)	Filter quality factor (Pa^−1)	Comments
Yun et al. (2007)	PAN	ES1 ES2 ES3 ES4 ES5	270	∼0.16 ∼0.17 ∼0.115 ∼0.062 ∼0.059	- same fiber diameter - different filter thickness - different volume fraction
Zhang et al. (2010)	PAN	PAN5 PAN5 × 3	224	0.037 0.063	- same fiber diameter - different basis weight - unidentified packing density
Leung, Hung, and Yuen (2010)	PEO	N9S N8S N7S N3S	208	0.016 0.017 0.018 0.028	- same fiber diameter - different filter thickness - different packing density - different basis weight
Matulevicius et al. (2016)	PVAc PAN	PVAc_60 PVAc_80 PAN_60 PAN_80	235 399 537 535	0.042 0.027 0.039 0.035	- broad fiber diameter distribution - different basis weight

Figure 1. Schematic diagram of the electrospinning equipment.

Table 2. Experimental conditions for test filters produced by electrospinning.

Parameters	100 nm	201 nm	306 nm
Polymer molecular weight (g/mol)	85,000-124,000	85,000-124,000	146,000-186,000
Polymer concentration (wt%)	7	12	10
Applied voltage (kV)	20	15	10
Feed rate (ml/h)	1.0
Tip to collector distance (cm)	10
Temperature (°C)	25 ± 5
Relative humidity (%)	40 ± 5

Figure 2. Experimental set-up for measuring filtration performance.

Figure 3. Viscosity of the PVA solution at different concentrations and molecular weights.

Figure 5. FE-SEM images and fiber diameter distributions of electrospun filter media at various molecular weights ((a) Mw: 31,000-50,000, (b) Mw: 85,000-1240,000, (c) Mw: 146,000-186,000).

Figure 6. FE-SEM images of electrospun filter media with same physical properties aside from different fiber diameters.

Table 3. Physical properties of the test filters’.

Properties	Electrospun PVA filters
Average fiber diameter, df (nm)	100	201	306
Filter thickness, L (µm)	5.01	5.08	5.13
Fiber weight per unit area, W (g/m^2)	0.4
Packing density of a filter, α (-)	0.052

Figure 7. Pressure drops of the PVA nanofiber filters and comparison of experimental data with results predicted by the proposed equation.

Figure 8. Collection efficiencies of PVA nanofiber filters and comparison of experimental data with results predicted by the proposed equation.

Figure 9. Filter quality factors of the PVA nanofiber filters and comparison of experimental data with results predicted by the proposed equations.

Figure 10. The relationship between inhomogeneity factor of the filters and filter quality factors.

Yun, K. M., C. J. Hogan, Y. Matsubayashi, M. Kawabe, F. Iskandar, and K. Okuyama. 2007. Nanoparticle filtration by electrospun polymer fibers. Chem. Eng. Sci. 62 (17):4751–9. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ces.2007.06.007.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Zhang, Q., J. Welch, H. Park, C.-Y. Wu, W. Sigmund, and J. C. M. Marijnissen. 2010. Improvement in nanofiber filtration by multiple thin layers of nanofiber mats. J. Aerosol Sci. 41 (2):230–6. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2009.10.001.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Leung, W. W. F., C. H. Hung, and P. T. Yuen. 2010. Effect of face velocity, nanofiber packing density and thickness on filtration performance of filters with nanofibers coated on a substrate. Sep. Purif. Technol. 71 (1):30–7. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.seppur.2009.10.017.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Matulevicius, J., L. Kliucininkas, T. Prasauskas, D. Buivydiene, and D. Martuzevicius. 2016. The comparative study of aerosol filtration by electrospun polyamide, polyvinyl acetate, polyacrylonitrile and cellulose acetate nanofiber media. J. Aerosol Sci. 92:27–37. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.10.006.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar