1887
banner image
No data available.
Please log in to see this content.
You have no subscription access to this content.
No metrics data to plot.
The attempt to load metrics for this article has failed.
The attempt to plot a graph for these metrics has failed.
Interpreting activity in binary nucleation
Rent:
Rent this article for
USD
10.1063/1.2768925
/content/aip/journal/jcp/127/12/10.1063/1.2768925
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jcp/127/12/10.1063/1.2768925

Figures

Image of FIG. 1.
FIG. 1.

(Color online) A plot of , , and vs mole fraction at . The linear fit equations are shown.

Image of FIG. 2.
FIG. 2.

(Color online) Perturbation analysis approximation of the ratio of nucleation rates for the case that activity represents the total concentration above solution vs the case that it represents only the monomer concentration . Ratios are calculated for three sets of temperature/relative humidity conditions; and 52.3% RH, and 38.2% RH, and and 55% RH.

Image of FIG. 3.
FIG. 3.

(Color online) (a) Nucleation rate, (b) critical cluster mole fraction, and (c) critical cluster diameter vs total vapor phase concentration at and 52.3% RH; results from the current work and calculations from the parameterizations of Kulmala et al. (Ref. 32) and Vehkamaki et al. (Refs. 31 and 33) have been included.

Image of FIG. 4.
FIG. 4.

(Color online) (a) Nucleation rate, (b) critical cluster mole fraction, and (c) critical cluster diameter vs total vapor phase concentration at and 38.2% RH; results from the current work and calculations from the parameterizations of Kulmala et al. (Ref. 32) and Vehkamaki et al. (Refs. 31 and 33) have been included.

Image of FIG. 5.
FIG. 5.

(Color online) (a) Nucleation rate, (b) critical cluster mole fraction, and (c) critical cluster diameter vs total vapor phase concentration at and 55% RH; results from the current work and calculations from the parameterizations of Kulmala et al. (Ref. 32) and Vehkamaki et al. (Refs. 31 and 33) have been included. The experimental data point of Eisele and Hanson (Ref. 36) is shown in (a).

Image of FIG. 6.
FIG. 6.

(Color online) Nucleation rate vs total vapor phase concentration at (a) and 38.2% RH, (b) and 52.3% RH, (c) and 15.3% RH, (d) and 10% RH, (e) and 7.5% RH, and (f) and 4.6% RH. Calculations from the current work, the parameterization of Vehkamaki et al. (Ref. 31) and the experimental measurements of Viisanen et al. (Ref. 34) [(a) and (b)] and Ball et al. (Ref. 35) [(c)–(f)] have been included. See text for discussion.

Tables

Generic image for table
Table I.

Average percent difference between theoretical calculations and experimental measurements. See text for details.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/aip/journal/jcp/127/12/10.1063/1.2768925
2007-09-27
2014-04-24
Loading

Full text loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
752b84549af89a08dbdd7fdb8b9568b5 journal.articlezxybnytfddd
Scitation: Interpreting activity in H2O–H2SO4 binary nucleation
http://aip.metastore.ingenta.com/content/aip/journal/jcp/127/12/10.1063/1.2768925
10.1063/1.2768925
SEARCH_EXPAND_ITEM