Experimental investigation on the morphology of soot aggregates from the burning of typical solid and liquid fuels

  • Dongmei Huang
  • Chenning Guo
  • Long Shi
Technology and Applications


Soot particles from the burning of typical fuels are one of the critical sources causing environmental problems and human disease. To understand the soot formation of these typical fuels, the size and morphology of soot aggregates produced from the burning of typical solid and liquid fuels, including diesel, kerosene, natural rubber (NR) latex foam, and wood crib, were studied by both extractive sampling and subsequent image analysis. The 2D and 3D fractal dimensions together with the diameter distribution of agglomerate and primary particles were analyzed for these four typical fuels. The average diameters of the primary particles were within 45–85 nm when sampling from different heights above the fire sources. Irregular sheet structures and flake-like masses were observed from the burning of NR latex foam and wood cribs. Superaggregates with a mean maximum length scale of over 100 μm were also found from the burning of all these four tested fuels. The fractal dimension of a single aggregate was 3 for all the tested fuels.

Key words

Fractal dimension Soot Aggregate Combustion Scanning electron microscope Environmental effects 



This work was supported by the Natural Science Fund of China, No. 51306168. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the help of Dr. Jihao Zhu with the work at the Second Institute of Oceanography (SOA).

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.


  1. Beyler CL, Hirschler MM (2002) Thermal decomposition of polymers. SFPE handbook of fire protection engineering, 3rd Edition: 1.110–1.131Google Scholar
  2. Chakrabarty RK, Moosmüller H, Garro MA et al (2006) Emissions from the laboratory combustion of wildland fuels: particle morphology and size. J Geophys Res 111(D7):1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chakrabarty RK, Garro MA, Garro BA et al (2011) Simulation of aggregates with point-contacting monomers in the cluster–dilute regime. Part 1: determining the most reliable technique for obtaining three-dimensional fractal dimension from two-dimensional images. Aerosol Sci Technol 45(1):75–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chakrabarty RK, Moosmüller H, Garro MA et al (2012) Observation of superaggregates from a reversed gravity low-sooting flame. Aerosol Sci Technol 46(1):i–iiiCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chakrabarty RK, Beres ND, Moosmüller H et al (2014) Soot superaggregates from flaming wildfires and their direct radiative forcing. Sci Rep 4:1–8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dhaubhadel R, Pierce F, Chakrabarti A et al (2006) Hybrid superaggregate morphology as a result of aggregation in a cluster-dense aerosol. Phys Rev E 73(1):011404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dong JL, Li HX, Yang CM et al (2014) Determination on combustion energies of four oxygenated chemicals. Laboratory Sci 17(6):4–6Google Scholar
  8. Fang J, Shu XM, Yuan HY et al (2004) Self-preserving size distribution of fire soot fractal coagulation in flaming combustion. J Fire Sci 22(1):53–68CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fitzpatrick EM, Jones JM, Pourkashanian M et al (2008) Mechanistic aspects of soot formation from the combustion of pine wood. Energ Fuel 22(6):3771–3778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Frenklach M (2002) Reaction mechanism of soot formation in flames. Phys Chem Chem Phys 4(11):2028–2037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Frenklach M, Gardiner WC, Stein SE et al (1986) Mechanism of soot formation in acetylene-oxygen mixtures. Combust Sci Technol 50(1–3):79–115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Frenklach M, Clary DW, Gardiner WC et al. (1988a) Effect of fuel structure on pathways to soot. Paper presented at the Symposium (International) on CombustionGoogle Scholar
  13. Frenklach M, Yuan T, Ramachandra MK (1988b) Soot formation in binary hydrocarbon mixtures. Energ Fuel 2(4):462–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fry D, Chakrabarti A, Kim W et al (2004) Structural crossover in dense irreversibly aggregating particulate systems. Phys Rev E 69(6):061401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Goo J (2012) Development of the size distribution of smoke particles in a compartment fire. Fire Safety J 47:46–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gwaze P, Schmid O, Annegarn HJ et al (2006) Comparison of three methods of fractal analysis applied to soot aggregates from wood combustion. J Aerosol Sci 37(7):820–838CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hirschler MM (1985a) Soot from fires: I. Properties and methods of investigation. J Fire Sci 3(5):343–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hirschler MM (1985b) Soot from fires: II. Mechanisms of soot formation. J Fire Sci 3(6):380–414CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Jagoda IJ, Prado G, Lahaye J (1980) An experimental investigation into soot formation and distribution in polymer diffusion flames. Combust Flame 37:261–274. doi: 10.1016/0010-2180(80)90095-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kamens RM, Perry JM, Saucy DA et al (1985) Factors which influence polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon decomposition on wood smoke particles. Environ Int 11(2):131–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kearney SP, Pierce F (2012) Evidence of soot superaggregates in a turbulent pool fire. Combust Flame 159(10):3191–3198CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kholghy MR. (2012) The evolution of soot morphology in laminar co-flow diffusion flames of the surrogates for jet A-1 and a synthetic kerosene. University of TorontoGoogle Scholar
  23. Kholghy MR, Weingarten J, Sediako AD et al.(2017) Structural effects of biodiesel on soot formation in a laminar coflow diffusion flame. P Combust Inst 36(1): 1321-1328Google Scholar
  24. Kim W, Sorensen CM, Fry D et al. (2003) Observation of soot superaggregates in laminar acetylene/air diffusion flames with a fractal dimension of 2.6^ 1. Paper presented at the APS Meeting AbstractsGoogle Scholar
  25. Kim W, Sorensen CM, Chakrabarti A (2004) Universal occurrence of soot superaggregates with a fractal dimension of 2.6 in heavily sooting laminar diffusion flames. Langmuir 20(10):3969–3973CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kim W, Sorensen CM, Fry D et al (2006) Soot aggregates, superaggregates and gel-like networks in laminar diffusion flames. J Aerosol Sci 37(3):386–401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lamberg H, Nuutinen K, Tissari J et al (2011) Physicochemical characterization of fine particles from small-scale wood combustion. Atmos Environ 45(40):7635–7643CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lea-Langton AR, Baeza-Romero MT, Boman GV et al (2015) A study of smoke formation from wood combustion. Fuel Processing Technol 137:327–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lee EJ, Oh KC, Shin HD (2005) Soot formation in inverse diffusion flames of diluted ethene. Fuel 84(5):543–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Li Z, Song CJ, Song J et al (2011) Evolution of the nanostructure, fractal dimension and size of in-cylinder soot during diesel combustion process. Combust Flame 158(8):1624–1630CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Luo H, Lee WMG, Lai YC et al (2005) Measuring the fractal dimension of diesel soot agglomerates by fractional Brownian motion processor. Atmos Environ 39(19):3565–3572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Merchan-Merchan W, Sanmiguel SG, McCollam S (2012) Analysis of soot particles derived from biodiesels and diesel fuel air-flames. Fuel 102:525–535CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Oh KC, Shin HD (2006) The effect of oxygen and carbon dioxide concentration on soot formation in non-premixed flames. Fuel 85(5):615–624CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Oh C, Sorensen CM (1997) The effect of overlap between monomers on the determination of fractal cluster morphology. J Colloid Interf Sci 193(1):17–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Onischuk AA, Di Stasio S, Karasev VV et al (2003) Evolution of structure and charge of soot aggregates during and after formation in a propane/air diffusion flame. J Aerosol Sci 34(4):383–403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ouf FX, Vendel J, Coppalle A et al (2008) Characterization of soot particles in the plumes of over-ventilated diffusion flames. Combust Sci Technol 180(4):674–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Ouf FX, Yon J, Ausset P et al (2010) Influence of sampling and storage protocol on fractal morphology of soot studied by transmission electron microscopy. Aerosol Sci Technol 44(11):1005–1017CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Par K, Kittelson DB, McMurry PH (2004) Structural properties of diesel exhaust particles measured by transmission electron microscopy (TEM): relationships to particle mass and mobility. Aerosol Sci Technol 38(9):881–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Pickett LM, Siebers DL (2002) An investigation of diesel soot formation processes using micro-orifices. P Combust Inst 29(1):655–662CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Pitkänen A, Lehtonen H, Huttunen P (1999) Comparison of sedimentary microscopic charcoal particle records in a small lake with dendrochronological data: evidence for the local origin of microscopic charcoal produced by forest fires of low intensity in eastern Finland. The Holocene 9(5):559–567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid JS, Hobbs PV (1998) Physical and optical properties of young smoke from individual biomass fires in Brazil. J Geophys Res 32:13–32,30Google Scholar
  42. Robert E, Olofsson NE, Bladh H et al (2014) Soot formation in unstrained diffusion flames. Combust Sci Technol 187(4):577–593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Rockne KJ, Taghon GL, Kosson DS (2000) Pore structure of soot deposits from several combustion sources. Chemosphere 41(8):1125–1135CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roh JS, Yang SS, Ryou HS (2007) Tunnel fires: experiments on critical velocity and burning rate in pool fire during longitudinal ventilation. J Fire Sci 25(2):161–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Roslim R, Amir Hashim MY, Augurio PT (2012) Natural latex foam. J Engin Sci 8:15–27Google Scholar
  46. Saffaripour M, Veshkini A, Kholghy M et al (2014) Experimental investigation and detailed modeling of soot aggregate formation and size distribution in laminar coflow diffusion flames of Jet A-1, a synthetic kerosene, and n-decane. Combust Flame 161(3):848–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Sorensen CM, Kim W, Fry D et al (2003) Observation of soot superaggregates with a fractal dimension of 2.6 in laminar acetylene/air diffusion flames. Langmuir 19(18):7560–7563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Tissari J, Lyyränen J, Hytönen K et al (2008) Fine particle and gaseous emissions from normal and smouldering wood combustion in a conventional masonry heater. Atmos Environ 42(34):7862–7873CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van GC, Marijnissen JCM, Makkee M et al (2004) Measuring diesel soot with a scanning mobility particle sizer and an electrical low-pressure impactor: performance assessment with a model for fractal-like agglomerates. J Aerosol Sci 35(5):633–655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Walters RN, Hackett SM, Lyon RE (2000) Heats of combustion of high temperature polymers. Fire Mater 24(5):245–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Wen Z, Yun S, Thomson MJ et al (2003) Modeling soot formation in turbulent kerosene/air jet diffusion flames. Combust Flame 135(3):323–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.College of Quality and Safety EngineeringChina Jiliang UniversityHangzhouChina
  2. 2.Key Laboratory of Furniture Inspection Technology of Zhejiang ProvinceHangzhouChina
  3. 3.Civil and Infrastructure Engineering Discipline, School of EngineeringRMIT UniversityMelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations