U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Display Settings:

Items per page

PMC Full-Text Search Results

Items: 8

1.
Fig. 4.

Fig. 4. From: Characterization of Exposures to Airborne Nanoscale Particles During Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum.

Mass distribution of metals Al, Fe, and Zn from the WRASS stages (Dp, aerodynamic diameter).

Frank E. Pfefferkorn, et al. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Jul;54(5):486-503.
2.
Fig. 1.

Fig. 1. From: Characterization of Exposures to Airborne Nanoscale Particles During Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum.

Schematic of FSW apparatus: (a) tool and workpiece geometry and (b) sampling geometry.

Frank E. Pfefferkorn, et al. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Jul;54(5):486-503.
3.
Fig. 6.

Fig. 6. From: Characterization of Exposures to Airborne Nanoscale Particles During Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum.

Particle size distribution obtained from the ESP (Case 1, source) presented in .

Frank E. Pfefferkorn, et al. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Jul;54(5):486-503.
4.
Fig. 5.

Fig. 5. From: Characterization of Exposures to Airborne Nanoscale Particles During Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum.

Field emission scanning electron microscopy SEIs of representative fields collected during Case 1: (a) collected with the ESP at the source; (b) collected with the TP at the BZ.

Frank E. Pfefferkorn, et al. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Jul;54(5):486-503.
5.
Fig. 2.

Fig. 2. From: Characterization of Exposures to Airborne Nanoscale Particles During Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum.

Typical size distribution (dN/dLog Dp, particle number per cubic millimeter) near the source for Case 1 as a function of time; (a) EEPS (Dp = electrical mobility diameter); (b) APS (Dp = aerodynamic diameter).

Frank E. Pfefferkorn, et al. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Jul;54(5):486-503.
6.
Fig. 8.

Fig. 8. From: Characterization of Exposures to Airborne Nanoscale Particles During Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum.

Particles collected with the ESP at the source and with the TP at the BZ for Case 1: (a and b) 60 nm diameter spherical Fe particle, from source, attached to a SiO2 flake; (c and d) Ni particle, from source; (e and f) Zn particle, from BZ; (g and h) large Al particle, from BZ.

Frank E. Pfefferkorn, et al. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Jul;54(5):486-503.
7.
Fig. 7.

Fig. 7. From: Characterization of Exposures to Airborne Nanoscale Particles During Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum.

Aluminum particles collected with ESP (Case 1, source): (a) Typical Al particle field emission scanning electron microscopy (FESEM) image; (b) EDS from (a) showing presence of major elements (Mg and Al) present in 6061-T6 aluminum. (c) FESEM image of a larger particle; (d) EDS from (c) showing high Al content.

Frank E. Pfefferkorn, et al. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Jul;54(5):486-503.
8.
Fig. 3.

Fig. 3. From: Characterization of Exposures to Airborne Nanoscale Particles During Friction Stir Welding of Aluminum.

Average size distribution (dN/dLog Dp) at (a) source and (b) BZ. The y-axis represents the relative particle number concentration, whereas the x-axis the channel midpoint. Each data point is the arithmetic mean of that channel value over five replicate tests. Standard errors of the mean have been omitted for clarity purposes. The EEPS measures the electrical mobility diameter, whereas the APS the aerodynamic diameter. Little overlap between two size distribution ranges and the different principles for measuring Dp may explain the dip at ∼600 nm. Case 1A through 2B are defined in .

Frank E. Pfefferkorn, et al. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Jul;54(5):486-503.

Display Settings:

Items per page

Supplemental Content

Recent activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...
Support Center