Atmospheric Environment 89 (2014) 199e206

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Atmospheric Environment
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/atmosenv

Comparison between Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches in

predicting motion of micron-sized particles in laminar flows
M.S. Saidi a, *, M. Rismanian a, M. Monjezi a, M. Zendehbad b, S. Fatehiboroujeni a
a
Center of Excellence in Energy Conversion and School of Mechanical Engineering, Sharif University of Technology, Tehran, Iran
b
Institut für Energietechnik, LEC ETH Zürich, ML J 3, Sonneggstrasse 3, CH-8092 Zürich, Switzerland

h i g h l i g h t s

This study compares the results of two approaches of Lagrangian and Eulerian.

In low concentration of particles, the results of two approaches are different.

Lagrangian model converge to the Eulerian one by increasing simulation time.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Modeling the behavior of suspended particles in gaseous phase is important for diverse reasons; e.g.
Received 24 October 2013 aerosol is usually the main subject of CFD simulations in clean rooms. Additionally, to determine the rate
Received in revised form and sites of deposition of particles suspended in inhaled air, the motion of the particles should be
22 January 2014
predicted in lung airways. Meanwhile there are two basically different approaches to simulate the
Accepted 31 January 2014
Available online 1 February 2014
behavior of particles suspension, Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches. This study compares the results of
these two approaches on simulating the same problem. An in-house particle tracking code was devel-
oped to simulate the motion of particles with Lagrangian approach. In order to simulate the same
Keywords:
Lagrangian approach
problem with Eulerian approach, the solution to the transport equation with appropriate initial and
Eulerian approach boundary conditions was used. In the first case study, diffusion of particles, initially positioned homo-
Aerosol geneously on an infinite plane was modeled with both approaches and the results were compared and
Particle deposition the mismatch between Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches was analyzed for different concentrations. In
the second case study, airflow with parabolic velocity profile moving between two parallel plates was
modeled with two approaches. The airflow initially contained a homogeneous suspension of particles
and the plates were maintained at zero concentration. The concentration along the plates was compared
between the two approaches and the differences in the performance of each approach were investigated,
again for different initial concentrations. The overall results confirm that as particle concentration falls
below a minimum amount, approximately 105 m2, the results of the two approaches deviate consid-
erably from each other and hence the Eulerian approach cannot be taken as an alternative for Lagrangian
approach for low concentrations. For the third problem, we investigated the 3D particle flow in an
expanding lung alveolus. It is shown that when the number of total released particles increases, the
results of Eulerian approach can be used as an alternative to Lagrangian simulation. Since the number of
particles existing in the lung alveolus in normal condition is much lower than this value, we concluded
that Eulerian method cannot be applied to problems involving low concentration of particles. Although,
the results of the Lagrangian problem may converge to the Eulerian one by increasing simulation time,
but it is a hypothetical situation which not really exist in short time scale problems such as third case
study in this paper.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The atmosphere where we all breathe in is in fact a suspension

of a wide variety of fine particles. Studying the behavior of fine
* Corresponding author. particles in a gas suspension is crucial to human being. Hence, this
E-mail address: mssaidi@sharif.edu (S. Fatehiboroujeni). subject is becoming increasingly attractive to scientists. As an

1352-2310/$ e see front matter Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2014.01.069
200 M.S. Saidi et al. / Atmospheric Environment 89 (2014) 199e206
example, one of the areas where study of aerosol behavior is sig-
nificant is simulation of clean rooms. Any clean room is designed to
accommodate a manufacturing or scientific task in which even a
limited number of aerosols may play a destructive role and result in
erroneous results. Therefore, there is a vast pool of modern studies
on simulation of aerosol motion in clean rooms among which one
can point to numerical modeling in Sznitman et al. (2009), Gao and
Zhang (2010) and combined numerical and experimental in-
vestigations in Shih et al. (2011), Whyte et al. (2010).
The industry of clean rooms is not the only field where studying
the behavior of fine particles seems necessary. Also airways of
human lung, both acinar and conducting ones, are where transport
and deposition of fine particles should be modeled and analyzed.
Drug delivery would be much more efficient if drug particles were
delivered straight to the intended tissue (Langers, 1998; Brain and
Valberg, 1979). The drug injected in the cardiovascular system
may have to pass from different organs like kidney, liver, etc. before
arriving at the intended tissue. So the possibility of administering
drugs via acinar airways of the lung can contribute a great deal to
an efficient method of drug delivery. In order to fulfill such a task, a
given drug should be first aerosolized and its resulting physical and
pharmaceutical characteristics should then be determined. The
next step is to determine the dynamics of the inhaled aerosol all the
way to the deepest parts of respiratory system. This approach is,
however, not an easy task to achieve mainly due to lack of adequate
in-vivo measuring techniques. Therefore the numerical simulations
can be the only way to predict the behavior of particles in acinar
airways.
In addition to drug delivery, the increasing rate of mortality and
morbidity because of inhaling fine particulates in the environment
reported in Schwartz and Dockery (1992), Wilson and Spengler
(1996) and the increasing threats of bio-terrorism reported in
Harrington et al. (2006) are other issues which add to the impor-
tance of the subject.
The numerical simulations used in the above mentioned refer-
ences follow two main separate approaches called Lagrangian and
Eulerian. Lagrangian approach deals with individual particles and
calculates the trajectory of each particle separately, whereas the
Eulerian approach deals with concentration of particles and cal-
culates the overall diffusion and convection of a number of parti-
cles. It is evident that when handling the same question, the
calculations in Lagrangian approach are quite more time
consuming than Eulerian approach since in Eulerian approach, an
average behavior of particles is investigated instead of the behavior
of each existing particle.
Hu et al. (2002) applied CFD simulation for particle dispersion in
clean rooms and Zhao and Wu (2005) applied Eulerian approach to
study if the particles could be treated as passive gas pollutants.
Zhao and Wu (2005) have modeled clean rooms using a well-
known derivation of Eulerian approach called drift-flux model
has been used in simulation of indoor particle dispersion (Gao and
Zhang, 2010).
Although when discussing why Eulerian method has been
preferred over Lagrangian one, it is mostly argued that because: 1)
Eulerian method has less computational cost in comparison with
Lagrangian one and 2) instead of positions of particles, Eulerian
method works with concentration of particles which is more
appropriate for engineering applications. However, the question is
that for what conditions the results of the two approaches are
equivalent and when the two methods are different. Although
much has been written on using these methods, less has been
written on the answer to this question in the area of aerosols.
Zhang and Chen (2007) compared Lagrangian and Eulerian ap-
proaches for two special geometries. However the shortcoming is
that modeling and analyzing two special cases on two special
geometries will not raise an overall rule for the mismatch between
the results of Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches for other studies
and geometries. Zhao et al. (2008) evaluated particle dispersion in
ventilated rooms by three different approaches of Lagrangian, drift
flux and mixture models. They concluded that Lagrangian models
agreed well with experimental data. The drift flux model is more
accurate near the wall while mixture model yield unacceptable
results for particle concentration. Although the result of drift flux
model agreed well with Lagrangian and experimental model, but
they did not report number of tracked particles and simulation time
in their Lagrangian model which is the purpose of this article.
Zhao et al. (2010) found penetration coefficient through a single
crack in a building envelope by three different approaches;
Analytical, Eulerian and Lagrangian. They used Fluent software for
Lagrangian simulation which independent results is obtained by
increasing number of particles. They according to Aliabadia and
Rogaka (2011), Zhao et al. (2011) concluded that Fluent
Lagrangian method cannot be used to model Brownian motion of
fine particles correctly.
Most of these studies are constricted to the steady state prob-
lems and they did not discuss the differences between the results of
two approaches in unsteady problems. Moreover, there is no dis-
cussion on the dependency of this mismatch with concentration of
particles; although it is expected that for high concentrations the
results of Lagrangian and Eulerian calculations may be the same
and as gradually the concentration is reduced, this mismatch
should also become more significant. Therefore there is a need to
bring up a quantitative comparison between Lagrangian and
Eulerian results for different particle concentrations and simulation
time.
It should be remarked that numerous studies such as Chibbaro
and Minier (2011), Sanjose et al. (2011) have compared
Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches for multiphase flow of bubbles
in liquids, but these studies cannot be related to aerosols, as
different mechanisms play role in the motion of bubbles in liquids
compared with the motion of particles in atmosphere.
In current work, we investigate three case studies to compare
the difference between the results of Lagrangian and Eulerian ap-
proaches. The basic mechanism in these two case studies which
makes particles move is Brownian motion of particles; or diffusion
of group of particles.
2. Methods
2.1. Lagrangian approach
A particle tracking code was developed to analyze the motion of
particles in atmosphere, capable of taking into account the effects
of diverse forces such as Brownian, Saffman, Drag and gravity force.
If the fluid flow domain is steady and simple and if flow velocity
components can be defined by simple functions, this code uses
these functions to obtain the velocity of fluid at the position of
particle; whereas if flow domain is rather complicated or if fluid
flow is unsteady, this code can be used in conjunction with fluid
flow solvers. Hence, at each time step of fluid flow this code in-
teracts with flow properties computed by the solver and particle
positions will be advanced in time. This code solves the following
equation to obtain the particle trajectories:
!
dup r
¼ FD þ g 1  þ Fp þ Fm þ FBa þ Fb þ Fs (1)
dt rp
In which the right hand side of this equation is the summation of
forces on the particle including drag FD, gravity, pressure gradient
force FP, virtual mass Fm and Basset force FBa, Brownian force Fb, and
 M.S. Saidi et al. / Atmospheric Environment 89 (2014) 199e206 201

Saffman’s lift force Fs. Ratio of FP, Fm, FBa to FD expressed in Table 1
because of small air density to particle density 1according to Zhao
et al. (2004) are very small and can be neglected. Also the ratio of Fs
to FD, indicates that Saffman’s lift force is important only for large
particles in high shear flows.
So, in three cases which we have studied only drag, gravity and
Brownian force are could be important. Since in our study the
prediction of particle motion by Lagrangian and Eulerian approach
is to be compared, the gravity force is excluded due to its similar
effect on these two approaches. Therefore, we have only focused on
the drag and Brownian forces.
Since the diameters of particles under study are in the order of
microns, the fluid flow around particles can be supposed to be in
the Stokes region due to low Reynolds number; therefore, referring
to Hinds (1999), drag force is computed using the following simple
equation:
FD ¼ 3pmUrel dp
while the Lagrangian approach deals with the second law of
Newton to compute the trajectory of individual particles, Eulerian
approach solves the transport equation for the concentration of
particles as below:
vc  
þ ðu$VÞc ¼ D V2 c (6)
vt
in which D is the diffusion coefficient of species. This equation
together with the necessary initial and boundary conditions will
determine the concentration of particles in space.
The connecting bridge between Lagrangian and Eulerian
approach in aerosol science is the diffusion coefficient. In other
words, the final equation obtained for Lagrangian approach is fully
dependent on properties of particles under investigation. The same
properties will combine together, in the following format, to form
the diffusion coefficient which is used in the transport equation (Eq.
(2) (6)) in Eulerian approach:

where m is the fluid viscosity, Urel is the relative velocity between kTCc
D ¼ (7)
particle and fluid and dp is the particle diameter. 3pmdp
In order to simulate the Brownian force, first the inverse of
With this in mind, the following paragraphs deal with com-
particle relaxation time is calculated as follows:
parison between the results of Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches
1 3pmdp in two case studies for the same particles, the same initial and
b¼ ¼ (3) boundary conditions. These results are expected to deviate from
s ðCc mÞ
each other as the particle concentration decreases.
where Cc is the slip correction factor and m is the particle mass.
Secondly, the spectral intensity is computed using the calculated
quantity: 3. Results and discussion

2kT b 3.1. First case study: free diffusion

S0 ¼ (4)
ðpmÞ
The first case study is about the one dimensional diffusion of
in which k is the Boltzmann constant and T is the fluid temperature. particles in a plane. The geometry of this model is shown in Fig. 1.
Having computed the spectral intensity, the acceleration caused by The particles are initially distributed over a two dimensional plane
Brownian force is easily obtained using the following equation: and then they are left to diffuse in space. If the initial plane is
sffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi assumed to be vast enough and also if particles are assumed to be
 
pS0 diffused homogeneously all over the plane, the diffusion of particles
ab ¼ g1 (5)
Dt in x and y directions (parallel to the plane) can be neglected and
diffusion will take place in z dimension only.
In this equation g1 is a random number with Gaussian distri-
bution and Dt is the time step for which the particle equation is vn v2 n
¼ D 2 (8)
being solved. The more developed explanation of this procedure vt vz
can be found in Ahmadi.
where D is the diffusion coefficient and n is the concentration of
particles in space. This problem can be solved analytically and the
2.2. Eulerian approach solution to this problem is provided in Friedlander (2000):

Although in Lagrangian approach the position of individual

particles in space are computed, in the Eulerian approach the
number concentration of particles is computed. On the other hand,

Table 1
Ratio of additional forces exerted on particles to drag force.

FD 1
ra a r
Fp rp ap zrp

Fm 1 r
2 rp

FBa  0:5
18rsR
CD prp t

   
Fs 9:69d C  0:5
in 2D flow : 18*y0:5p *pc du
dy
sgn du
dy
0:288dp Cc dij
in 3D flow : Fig. 1. The schematic of geometry for the first case study; a) particles arrangement at
y0:5 ðdlk dkl Þ0:25
t ¼ 0, b) t > 0.
202 M.S. Saidi et al. / Atmospheric Environment 89 (2014) 199e206

  This problem, when approached by Eulerian method, with the

N0 z2
nðx; tÞ ¼ exp 
2ðpDtÞ 0:5 4Dt
in which N0 is the initial concentration (#/m2) of particles over the
two dimensional plane. The same problem was modeled by
Lagrangian approach by simulating the diffusion of 1-micron
diameter particles released from an origin in stationary fluid in
one dimension under the effect of Brownian force through 0.001 s
time steps for 200 s as described in Section 2.1. In order to calculate
the concentration of particles in Lagrangian approach the calcula-
tion domain was divided into equal bands in z direction and the
number of particles in each band was divided by the volume of each
band width. First of all in order to understand the behavior of the
two solutions with time, the root mean square of particle positions
(Xrms) were calculated and compared by two approaches. In this
case, the mean displacement of particles will be compared.
Therefore, the following two equivalent equations will be used to
obtain the mean displacement of particles in both approaches:
Mean displacement in Lagrangian calculations
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u
u1 X n
¼ t x2i
No
i¼1
discussed initial and boundary conditions can be modeled by the
(9)
following equation which simulates unsteady diffusion in one
dimension:
As it can be seen, when the concentration is high, the results of
the Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches are completely concurrent.
This condition is pertaining to the case where the concentration of
particles is in the order of 105 numbers per square meter. Never-
theless when the simulation is repeated for lower concentrations,
results of the two approaches deviate from each other; when the
concentration of particles becomes as low as in the order of 102
numbers per square meter, no accordance can be seen between the
predictions of the two approaches. Since atmospheric air is a sus-
pension of particles with high concentration, Eulerian method
could be a useful tool to simulate how particles are dispersed. In the
contrary the concentration of particles in a clean room is basically
very low. Hence, on the basis of current simulation, using Eulerian
methods for modeling aerosol in a clean room may not be much
near to what actually happens in that clean room. This limitation
plays a considerable role in many CFD simulations of air born
aerosols; since common aerosols found in nature and in clean
rooms are mainly attributed with concentrations lower than the
minimum limit found in this study.
(10)

3.2. Second case study: 2D parallel flow

Mean displacement in Eulerian calculations
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
u ZþN The second case study models the diffusion of particles in the
u
u1 flow between two parallel plates with the flow having a fully
¼ t x2 nðx; tÞdx (11)
No developed parabolic velocity profile. Fig. 4 shows the schematic of
N
this case.
The relative difference between Xrms calculated by Eulerian and As written in Friedlander (2000), if the Peclet number is higher
Lagrangian methods for 1-micron diameter particles of standard than 100, then the diffusion in the direction of flow can be
density and different initial concentration is shown in Fig. 2. The neglected and just the diffusion in the direction perpendicular to
error is calculated according to Eq. (12). the plates should be taken into consideration. Therefore, convective
diffusion equation in such condition would be:
jXrms ðEulerianÞ  Xrms ðLagrangianÞj !
Relative error ¼ (12)  
Xrms ðLagrangianÞ 3 y2 vc v2 c
vm 1  2 ¼ D (13)
It can be seen in Fig. 2 that the relative difference of Xrms pre-
2 b vx vy2
dicted by two approaches is decreasing as time passes. After 200 s
With following boundary conditions:
this difference is approximately under 4% for all concentrations. It
should be noted that this is relative error but yet there are Cð0; yÞ ¼ C0 (14)
considerable absolute errors in particle positions as shown in Fig. 3.
In this figure the calculated particle concentrations after 200 s were 
vCðx; yÞ
compared with those of calculated with Eulerian approach ac- ¼ 0 (15)
cording to Eq. (9) for different initial concentrations. vy y¼0

Cðx; bÞ ¼ 0 (16)
Concentration of particles was set to zero at the plates.
Therefore, each particle which impacts on the plates will be
absorbed.
In dimensionless terms the Eq. (13) and its boundary conditions
can be written

  v q  v2 q
1  h2 ¼ (17)
vg vh2

with

qð0; hÞ ¼ 1 (18)

vq
ðg; 0Þ ¼ 0 (19)
Fig. 2. Error of Lagrangian and Eulerian methods with respect to each other. vh
 M.S. Saidi et al. / Atmospheric Environment 89 (2014) 199e206
Fig. 3. Concentrations at different positions in the first case study by Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches for different initial concentration; (a) 105 m2, (b) 104 m2, (c) 103 m2, (d)
102 m2.
Fig. 4. The schematic of the geometry in the second case study and fully developed
velocity profile.
qðg; 1Þ ¼ 0
where q(g,h) ¼ C/C0, h ¼ y/b, and if Pe ¼ 4vmb/D is the Peclet
number and g ¼ (1/Pe)(8x/3b).
This is analogous to classical heat transfer problem between
parallel plates with constant temperature maintained at the plates
named “Graetz problem” which has been investigated thoroughly
by Sellers et al.
In our Lagrangian simulation, 1-micron diameter particles were
released from the channel inlet and tracked applying drag and
Brownian force through 0.001 s time steps for 200 s as described in
2.1. The height of channel and the mean flow velocity respectively
203
were 1 mm and 0.05 m/s. For considering walls, it was assumed that
particles impact on walls will be trapped and will be excluded from
the remaining simulation. In order to maintain a constant con-
centration at the inlet, when a particle leaves the channel inlet
another particle was injected instead. Similar to first case by
dividing the space into equal horizontal bandwidths the average
concentration (q(g)) along the plates, is computed and compared
with the predicted ones by Eulerian approach as shown in Fig. 5.
Same as the results of the first case study the results reveal that
for initial concentrations lower than 102 m2 the accordance of the
results of two methods decreases. In order to observe this deviation
better, we can also compare the concentrations in y direction,
calculated by the two methods in a specific location along the
plates as shown in Fig. 6.
It can be shown that as long as the concentration of particles is
high enough, Eulerian and Lagrangian approaches reveal the same
results, although when concentrations fall below about 105 m2, as
it is depicted in Fig. 6, the results of the two approaches deviate
(20) from each other.
4. Third case study: 3D expanding flow
In this section we have solved hydrodynamics, mass transport
and particle transport in a single lung alveolus. The alveolus is
supposed to be spherical with a diameter of 1 mm. The geometry
and the created mesh are displayed in Fig. 7.
Simulation is performed for an inhalation time of 2 s. During
inhalation alveolus is expanded in a simple sinusoidal manner
(Sznitman et al., 2009). Any length scale L(t) in the geometry may
204 M.S. Saidi et al. / Atmospheric Environment 89 (2014) 199e206

Fig. 5. Mean concentration variation along the plates in the second case study by Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches for different initial concentration; (a) 105 m2, (b) 104 m2, (c)
103 m2, (d) 102 m2.

then be described by the following sinusoidal kinematic displace- where L0 is the length scale at t ¼ 0, f ¼ 1/T is the breathing fre-
ment function: quency, and l(t) is the sinusoidal function defined in the brackets of
Eq. (21).We have assumed that T ¼ 4 s and the length scale
 expansion factor b ¼ 0.077.
b b  p The pressure inlet boundary condition is chosen so that moving
LðtÞ ¼ L0 1 þ þ sin 2pft  ¼ L0 lðtÞ (21)
2 2 2 walls will cause air to flow in and out of the alveolus. In order to
compare the results of the two approaches, particle tracking and

Fig. 6. Concentration profile between the plates at g ¼ 1 for the second case study by Lagrangian and Eulerian approaches for different initial concentration; (a) 105 m2, (b)
104 m2, (c) 103 m2, (d) 102 m2.
 M.S. Saidi et al. / Atmospheric Environment 89 (2014) 199e206 205

mass transport problems are solved separately. We have tracked 1

micron particles with the density of 1000 kg/m3 due to inertial,
drag and Brownian Forces. We have used slip correction factor of
1.165. The diffusion coefficient of liquid water droplets in air was set
to 2.96 E11 m2/s. In Lagrangian modeling particle injection is
performed in each time step such that the number of particles on
the inlet face during whole time is maintained at a constant value
and particles which impact alveolus walls are trapped. Accordingly,
in Eulerian simulation the concentration at the inlet and alveolus
walls is set to one and zero, respectively.
We have compared these two approaches by computing depo-
sition fraction of inlet particles on the walls. The deposited mass is
computed by subtracting the mass of residual suspended particles
from the inlet particles. It can be calculated simply in Lagrangian
approach, while in Eulerian approach it needs to perform concen-
tration integration over the domain volume to find the residual
mass and also integration of flux over the inlet face area of model
Fig. 7. Geometry of the alveolus.
during the whole time period to determine the inlet mass. The
comparison between deposition fractions for the two approaches is
plotted in Fig. 8. As you can see the relative deposition in Eulerian
approach is constant on 46.5% while in Lagrangian approach, it
dependents on the number of released particles and changes from
55.5% in 103 to 46.5% in 2  104 particles. So, both approaches yield
the same results when the number of released particles is increased
to 2  104.
In Fig. 9 we have shown concentration contours in Eulerian
approach and particle tracks in Lagrangian approach both together.
It can be comprehended from case (a) to (d) that by increasing the
number of released particles the particle distribution is more
resembled by the contours of concentration. In fact, when the
number of incoming particles is large the error in computing par-
ticle fraction is reduced.
The actual number of particles which could exist in an alveolus
hardly exceeds 10. Hence, in such problems with very low particle
concentration it should be considered that Eulerian approach could
not be used as an alternative to Lagrangian. This fact may play a
Fig. 8. Deposition fraction for different number of released particles in two limiting role in modeling a wide range of problems with low con-
approaches. centration of particles.

Fig. 9. (a) Concentration contour resulted from Eulerian model, (b) Trajectory of 1-micron diameter particles after 2 s for 2000 released particle, (c) Trajectory of 1-micron diameter
particles after 2 s for 10000 released particle, (d) Comparison of Eulerian vs. Lagrangian for 2000 released particle and (e) Comparison of Eulerian vs. Lagrangian for 10000 released
particle.
206 M.S. Saidi et al. / Atmospheric Environment 89 (2014) 199e206
5. Conclusion
In this study, three different cases were analyzed. In each case,
exactly the same conditions were simulated by two different ap-
proaches, Lagrangian and Eulerian. The findings of this study are:
1 In low concentrations, the results of Lagrangian and Eulerian
modeling are not in satisfactory accordance with each other, and
Eulerian modeling may not look reasonable.
2 In steady state problems as found in case studies 1 and 2, despite
of long time of particle tracking in Lagrangian simulations
(200 s), the results of Eulerian method and Lagrangian one in
low particle numbers are different. The minimum limit found in
this study to coincide Eulerian results with Lagrangian ones is
105.
3 Although, the results of the Lagrangian problem may converge
to the Eulerian one by increasing simulation time, but it is a
hypothetical situation which not really exist in short time scale
problems. In other words, using Eulerian approach is not
reasonable for short time scale problems such as the third case
study. In fact, when the particle concentration is low, the time
scale of problem should be long enough to be able to apply
Eulerian approach instead of time consuming Lagrangian
simulation.
References
Ahmadi, G., Particle transport, depostion and removal course material.
Aliabadia, A.A., Rogaka, S.N., 2011. Langrangian stochastic particle tracking. Aerosol
Science and Technology 45, 313e314.
Brain, J.D., Valberg, P.A., 1979. Deposition of aerosol in the respiratory tract.
American Review of Respiratory Diseases 120, 1325e1373.
Chibbaro, S., Minier, J.P., 2011. A note on the consistency of hybrid Eulerian/
Lagrangian approach to multiphase flows. International Journal of Multiphase
Flow 37, 293e297.
Friedlander, S.K., 2000. Smoke, Dust, and Haze, Fundamentals of Aerosol Dynamics.
Oxford University Press, Los Angeles.
Gao, Z., Zhang, J.S., 2010. Numerical analysis for evaluating the exposure reduction
effectiveness of room air cleaners. Building and Environment 45, 1984e1992.
Harrington, L., Prisk, G.K., Darquenne, C., 2006. Importance of bifurcation zone and
branch orientation in simulated aerosol deposition in the alveolar zone of the
human lung. Journal of Aerosol Science 37, 37e62.
Hinds, W.C., 1999. Aerosol Technology, Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of
Airborne Particles. Wiley-Interscience, New York.
Hu, S.C., Chuah, Y.K., Yen, M.C., 2002. Design and evaluation of a minienvironment
for semiconductor manufacture processes. Building and Environment 37, 201e
208.
Langers, R., 1998. Drug delivery and targeting. Nature 391, 5e7.
Sanjose, M., Senoner, J.M., Jaegle, F., Cuenot, B., Moreau, S., Poinsot, T., 2011. Fuel
injection model for Euler-Euler and Euler-Lagrange large-eddy simulations of
an evaporating spray inside an aeronautical combustor. International Journal of
Multiphase Flow 37 (5), 514e529.
Schwartz, J., Dockery, D.W., 1992. Increased mortality in philadelphia associated
with daily air pollution concentrations. American Review of Respiratory Dis-
eases 145, 600e604.
Shih, Y.C., Yang, A.S., Lu, C.W., 2011. Using air curtain to control pollutant spreading
for emergency management in a clean room. Building and Environment 46,
1104e1114.
Sznitman, J., et al., 2009. Respiratoryþ þFlow phenomena and gravitational depo-
sition in a three-dimensional space-filling modelþ þof the pulmonary acinar
tree. Journal of Biomechanical Engineering Aerosol and Air Quality Research 10
(131), 316e322.
Whyte, W., Hejab, M., Whyte, W.M., Green, G., 2010. Experimental and CFD airflow
studies of a clean room with special respect to air supply inlets. International
Journal of Ventilation 9, 197e209.
Wilson, R., Spengler, J.D., 1996. Particles in Our Air: Concentration and Health Ef-
fects. Harvard Univeristy Press, Boston, MA.
Zhang, Z., Chen, Q., 2007. Comparison of the Eulerian and Lagrangian methods for
predicting particle transport in enclosed spaces. Atmospheric Environment 41,
5236e5248.
Zhao, B., C., C., Lai, A.C.K., 2011. Lagrangian stochastic particle tracking: further
discussion. Aerosol Science and Technology 45, 901e902.
Zhao, B., Chena, C., Yangb, X., Laic, A.C.K., 2010. Comparison of three approaches to
model particle penetration coefficient through a single straight crack in a
building envelope. Aerosol Science and Technology 44, 405e416.
Zhao, B., Wu, J., 2005. Numerical investigation of particle diffusion in clean room.
Indoor and Built Environment 14, 469e479.
Zhao, B., Yang, C., Yang, X., Liu, S., 2008. Particle dispersion and deposition in
ventilated rooms: testing and evaluation of different Eulerian and Lagrangian
models. Building and Environment 43, 388e397.
Zhao, B., Zhang, Y., Li, X., Yang, X., Huang, D., 2004. Comparison of indoor aerosol
particle concentration and deposition in different ventilated rooms by nu-
merical method. Building and Environment 39, 1e8.