Wear 268 (2010) 763–769

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Wear
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/wear

A pin-on-disc simulation of airborne wear particles from disc brakes

Jens Wahlström a,∗ , Anders Söderberg a,1 , Lars Olander b,2 , Anders Jansson c,3 , Ulf Olofsson a,4
a
The Royal Institute of Technology, Machine Design, SE 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
b
The Royal Institute of Technology, Building Services Engineering, SE 100 44 Stockholm, Sweden
c
Stockholm University Applied Environmental Science, SE 106 91 Stockholm, Sweden

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

Article history: A novel test method was used to study the concentration and size distribution of airborne wear particles
Received 8 April 2009 from disc brake materials. A pin-on-disc tribometer equipped with particle counting instruments was
Received in revised form 12 October 2009 used as test equipment. Material from four different non-asbestos organic (NAO) pads and four differ-
Accepted 25 November 2009
ent low metallic (LM) pads were tested against material from grey cast iron rotors. The results indicate
Available online 1 December 2009
that the low metallic pads cause more wear to the rotor material than the NAO pads, resulting in higher
concentrations of airborne wear particles. Although there are differences in the measured particle concen-
Keywords:
trations, similar size distributions were obtained. Independent of pad material, the characteristic particle
Wear
Airborne particles
number distributions of airborne brake wear particles have maxima around 100, 280, 350, and 550 nm.
Disc brake © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Pin-on-disc

1. Introduction the United States by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency)

The disc brakes on most modern passenger cars are not sealed
off from the ambient air. During braking both the brake pads and
rotors are worn, generating wear particles. Some of these particles
are deposited on the brake hardware, and others become airborne.
Most rotors used in passenger cars are made of grey cast iron. The
brake pads can be made of many different materials [1], but are
essentially of three types: non-asbestos organic (NAO) pads, semi-
metallic pads, and low metallic (LM) pads. According to Sanders et
al. [2] NAO brake pads exhibit relatively low brake noise and low
wear rates, but lose braking capacity at high temperature. Semi-
metallic brake pads have a high steel fibre and iron powder content
and low wear, but are noisier than the other types. Low metallic
brake pads have a relatively high abrasive content, resulting in high
friction and good braking capacity at high temperatures.
The relation between adverse health effects and the concen-
tration of particles in the atmosphere is well documented [3–5].
The limit levels for PM2.5 and PM10 (particles with aerodynamic
diameters smaller than 2.5 and 10 ␮m, respectively) is set in the
European Union by the EC (European Commission) [6] and in
∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +46 87907860; fax: +46 8202223.
E-mail addresses: jensw@md.kth.se (J. Wahlström), aes@md.kth.se (A. Söder-
berg), Lars.Olander@byv.kth.se (L. Olander), Anders.Jansson@itm.su.se (A. Jansson),
ulfo@md.kth.se (U. Olofsson).
1
Tel.: +46 87907265.
2 tigate the possibilities of using the experimental set-up proposed
Tel.: +46 87906782.
3
Tel.: +46 86747634.
4
Tel.: +46 87906304.
[7]. Wear particles from disc brakes also have an aesthetic effect
because some of them stick to visible surfaces of the wheel
rims.
When measuring airborne brake particles in field tests it can
be difficult to distinguish them from particles generated from
other sources such as construction [8], resuspended road dust [9],
wheel-to-rail contact [10,11], and car-to-road contact [12,13]. It is
therefore preferable to conduct the tests in a laboratory where the
cleanness of the surrounding air can be controlled. Although sev-
eral studies have focused on wear and friction at the pad-to-rotor
interface in laboratory test stands (for example [14–16]) only a few
have focused on online measurement of airborne wear particles
[2,17,18]. The representativity of test stand measurements should
be verified by comparison with field tests; however, passenger car
field tests are rare. Sanders et al. [2] measured number and mass
concentrations of airborne particles in the field, and compared the
results with those measured in dynamometer tests. Wahlström et
al. [19] tested low metallic pads in test stands and compared the
results with field testing.
Recently, Vorbau et al. [20] developed a novel test method for
quantification of the nanoparticle release into the air from surface
coatings, but they did not use a clean air supply to control the
background concentration. Olofsson et al. [21] used a pin-on-disc
tribometer with a clean air supply to measure the airborne wear
particles generated at the sliding contact between a steel pin and
a steel disc. The objective of the work presented here is to inves-
by Olofsson and Olander to compare different disc brake materi-
als. This paper describes the experimental set-up and presents the

0043-1648/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wear.2009.11.014
764 J. Wahlström et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 763–769
result from a test series in which non-asbestos organic (NAO) pads
and low metallic pads were tested against grey cast iron.
2. Experimental set-up
The tests were performed on a pin-on-disc machine with a hor-
izontal rotating disc and a dead weight loaded pin (Fig. 1). The
machine is a conventional tribometer used for tribological test-
ing of various material combinations for friction and wear. The
machine runs under stationary conditions with constant applied
normal forces of up to 100 N and constant rotational speeds of up
to 440 rpm. A load cell is used to measure the tangential force acting
on the pin.
The coefficient of friction was calculated as the measured tan-
gential force divided by the applied normal force. The wear of
the test samples was measured using two different methods. The
mass loss was measured by weighing the test samples before and
after the test to the nearest 0.1 mg using a Mettler H315 analytical
balance. A WA/10 inductive displacement gauge from Hottinger
Baldwin Measurement GMbH was used to continuously measure
normal displacement of the level arm with an accuracy of ±6%. The
displacement gauge gives an online measure of the total wear of
both the pin and the disc sample, making it possible to observe
changes in the wear rate due to running-in effects or changes in
wear mechanisms.
The pin-on-disc machine is in a climate chamber, which allows
testing at different temperatures and humidity levels. In these tests
the climate chamber was used as a closed chamber with control of
the cleanness of the incoming air. The fan (B) takes the air from the
room (A) and passes it into the chamber (G) via a flow measure-
ment system (C) and a filter (D) and through the air inlet opening
(F). The connections between the fan, measurement system, filter
and chamber were flexible tubes (E). All connections from the mea-
surement system to the chamber were sealed to prevent leakages.
A leak would not disturb the tests, since the air pressure inside
the tubes was higher than outside, but it would result in incorrect
measurements for the airflow rate though the chamber and thus
influence the particle concentration measurements. In the cham-
ber the air was well mixed (N) due to the complicated volume of the
pin-on-disc machine (H) and the high air exchange rate. This mix-
ing was verified by the smooth particle concentrations measured
during the tests. The air in the chamber transported the generated
particles to the air outlet (J), where sampling points for the particle
measurements were situated.
Fig. 1. Schematic figure of the test equipment. (A) Room air; (B) fan; (C) flow rate
measurement; (D) filter; (E) flexible tube; (F) inlet for clean air, measurement point;
(G) closed chamber; (H) pin-on-disc machine; (I) pin sample; (J) air outlet, measure-
ment points; (K) displacement gauge; (L) dead weight; (M) rotating disc sample; (N)
air inside chamber, well mixed.
The fan had a variable speed and was set to a flow rate of 7.7 m3 /h
(2.1 L/s). The chamber volume was 0.135 m3 , and the volume of
the pin-on-disc machine was approximately 0.035 m3 , giving an
approximate air change rate of 77/h (1.28/min). The measured flow
rate varied somewhat during the tests, from 7.7 to 9.2 m3 /h. The
latter value gives an air change rate of 92/h. The flow rate measure-
ment system consisted of a straight calibrated tube with separate
connections for total and static pressure, measured using an ordi-
nary U-tube manometer. The system was calibrated in the flow
interval 2–50 m3 /h. The filter (D) was used to ensure particle-free
inlet air and was of class H13 (according to standard EN 1822) with
a certified collection efficiency of 99.95% at MPPS (maximum pen-
etrating particle size). The particle-free inlet air was verified by
monitoring it with a TSI PTrak instrument.
Inside the chamber a small pneumatic tube was attached to
the pin-on-disc equipment. The pressurized air was completely
cleaned by a filter and was directed at the contact point with high
velocity (>10 m/s) through two small nozzles. The aim was to min-
imize the number of particles stuck to the test materials and to
simulate the air flow on the rotor in field. The air flow in these noz-
zles was 0.07–0.08 L/s, which increased the calculated air change
for the highest air flow rate to 94/h.
The air and the particles in the chamber were transported
through the chamber to the outlet opening (diameter 80 mm, the
same as the inlet diameter) where the particle measurement sam-
pling was done.
The main particle instrument was a Grimm 1.109 Aerosol
Spectrometer [22] (optical light scattering particle counter). This
measures airborne particles from 0.25 to 32 ␮m in 31 size intervals
and concentrations from 1 to 2 × 106 particles/dm3 with a sample
flow rate of 72 dm3 /h (0.02 dm3 /s). Minimum measurable concen-
trations depend on the sensitivity of the particle counter, sampling
time, sample flow rate, and airflow rate through the chamber. At
the flow rates in these experiments, the minimum concentrations
are approximately one decade below the results obtained for par-
ticles up to one micrometer, and more than two decades lower for
larger particles. An optical particle counter is sensitive to the form
and refractive index of the particles, which means that the mea-
sured particle sizes and number distributions should be regarded
as approximate [23].
Other particle instruments were also used to sample the air at
the outlet. The first is a TSI PTrak [24]. This is a condensation nuclei
counter that measures the number concentration of airborne par-
ticles between 0.02 and 1 ␮m. For both the upper and lower limits,
the 50% cut-off in counting rate is given. There is no size resolu-
tion between upper and lower limits. Particle concentrations (5-s
averages) were registered every 5 s.
The second particle instrument was a TSI DustTrak, which mea-
sures the volume concentration and reports the mass concentration
(mg/m3 ). This photometer can measure particle concentrations
corresponding to respirable size, PM10 , PM2.5 , or PM1.0 size frac-
tions. It is calibrated with solid particles with a density of
2650 kg/m3 . In these experiments it was used without any pre-
precipitator, and thus measured particles between 0.1 and 10 ␮m.
The mass concentration was recorded every 5 s. The instrument is
calibrated with a standardized test dust, which has a different size
distribution, density, and refractive index to the particles measured
here. Thus the output from this instrument can only be used as a
relative measure, but is useful for showing changes in the mass
concentration over time [25].
The third instrument at the outlet was a scanning mobility parti-
cle sizer (SMPS) [26]. The SMPS combines an electrostatic classifier
(TSI 3071) with a particle counter (TSI CPC 3010). The particles are
charged in a controlled manner and then sequentially classified
according to their electrical mobility. With the controlled charging,
particle electrical mobility corresponds to particle size. The counter
 J. Wahlström et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 763–769 765

Table 1 The whole system, including the pin-on-disc machine, was

Material combinations: low metallic (LM); non-asbestos organic (NAO).
tested before each test by starting the system before the actual
Pin sample material Disc sample material wear process began (i.e. before the pin was in contact with the
LM 1 Grey cast iron rotating disc). The criterion for starting a test was a zero parti-
LM 2 Grey cast iron cle concentration at the outlet (chamber) air. This was normally
Front brake
NAO 1 Grey cast iron reached within 5–10 min. If it was not achieved, the test was not
NAO 2 Grey cast iron started, and fault-tracking was performed to find and eliminate the
LM 3 Grey cast iron source of the unwanted particles.
LM 4 Grey cast iron
Rear brake
NAO 3 Grey cast iron
NAO 4 Grey cast iron 2.1. Materials

The tests were conducted on disc-shaped rotor samples 43 mm

subsequently registers the particles in sequential size classes. The
counter is a condensation nuclei counter which uses condensation
to optically count particles down to 10 nm.
The SMPS recorded a particle number concentration size dis-
tribution every 5.5 min. The size distribution ranged from 10 to
520 nm in 110 size classes. Total number concentrations down to
a few particles/cm3 could be registered, but for some runs the
concentrations were too low for meaningful individual cycle size
distribution data.
All results from the aerosol instruments are given as measured
concentrations. Since the airflow through the chamber was nearly
constant through the tests, the concentrations can be used as a
measure of the aerosols generated.
in diameter and 6 mm thick using pin-shaped pad samples 10 mm
in diameter and 15–17 mm high. The test samples were manu-
factured from brake pads and rotors of passenger cars. Four pad
materials used in front brakes and four pad materials used in rear
brakes were used in the tests (Table 1). Two low metallic (LM) pad
materials from the EU market and two NAO pads from the U.S. mar-
ket were included for front and rear brakes. All brake pad materials
were tested against grey cast iron.
The disc samples were cut from the rotors using waterjet cut-
ting. The porosity and chemical composition of the friction material
in the brake pads complicated pin sample manufacturing. Instead
of using waterjet cutting, the pin samples had to be sawed out
mechanically and then ground to the specified cylindrical shape.

Fig. 2. Typical curves presenting the measured coefficient of friction (), normal Fig. 3. Typical curves presenting the measured coefficient of friction (), normal
displacement of level arm (h), and particle concentrations as measured with the displacement of level arm (h), and particle concentrations as measured with the
PTrak (cPTrak ) and the DustTrak (cDustTrak ) in tests with front brake materials. PTrak (cPTrak ) and the DustTrak (cDustTrak ) in tests with rear brake materials.
766 J. Wahlström et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 763–769

The contact surfaces of the test samples were not re-machined (i.e. 3. Results
the original contact surfaces of both pads and rotors were unal-
tered). The disc samples were cleaned ultrasonically with propane Typical time history curves showing the measured coefficient
and methanol prior to testing. Due to the porosity of the pad mate- of friction and normal displacement of the level arm are shown
rial and the risk of dissolving the binder, the pin samples were only in the two upper graphs of Figs. 2 and 3. The corresponding par-
dusted off using a blast of dry air and not cleaned with solvents. ticle concentration curves are presented in the two lower graphs
in Figs. 2 and 3, and in the two upper graphs of Figs. 4 and 5. The
concentrations measured using the GRIMM instrument are divided
2.2. Test conditions
into two curves. The first curve shows the concentration of particles
smaller than 1 ␮m (i.e. overlapping the measurement range of the
The test conditions simulated urban traffic. The disc rotated at
PTrak instrument). The second curve shows particles larger than
a constant rotational speed of 440 rpm (the maximum speed of
1 ␮m, and may be compared with the DustTrak concentrations.
the pin-on-disc machine). The wear track on the disc had a diam-
Figs. 4 and 5 shows typical normalized number and volume dis-
eter (midpoint of track to midpoint of disc) of 30 mm, giving a
tributions in the size interval 0.25–32 ␮m measured by the GRIMM
resulting mean sliding speed of 0.7 m/s. If scaled to typical pas-
instrument. The corresponding size distributions measured with
senger car conditions, the motion corresponds to a vehicle speed of
the SMPS instrument in the size interval 10–520 nm are shown
7 km/h. The nominal contact pressure was 1.2 MPa, which is con-
in Figs. 6 and 7. The calculated volume distributions are also pre-
sidered typical for light braking sequences that reduce the speed
sented for both instruments. The characteristic normalized volume
of a vehicle but do not bring it to a halt. The samples were in con-
distribution has been computed assuming spherical particles. The
tact for 60 min and the corresponding sliding distance was 2520 m.
distribution curves have been normalized using the mean particle
The temperature and relative humidity in the climate chamber
concentrations during the test.
were not actively controlled; the ambient air temperature varied
The particle concentrations measured by the different instru-
between 23 and 25 ◦ C and the relative humidity varied between
ments are compared in Fig. 8. The measured wear of the different
35% and 55%. Three individual tests were run for each material
materials is compared in Fig. 9 in terms of the displacement of the
combination.
level arm at the end of the test and the mass loss of the test sam-

Fig. 4. Typical curves presenting particle concentrations (cGRIMM ) for particles with Fig. 5. Typical curves presenting particle concentrations (cGRIMM ) for particles with
a diameter (D) smaller and larger than 1 ␮m, and normalized number and volume a diameter (D) smaller and larger than 1 ␮m, and normalized number and volume
distributions as measured with the GRIMM instrument during tests with front brake distributions as measured with the GRIMM instrument during tests with rear brake
materials. materials.
 J. Wahlström et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 763–769 767

Fig. 6. Typical normalized number and volume distributions for front brake pads as Fig. 7. Typical normalized number and volume distributions for rear brake pads as
measured with the SMPS instrument. D is the particle diameter. measured with the SMPS instrument. D is the particle diameter.

Fig. 8. Mean values of particle concentration as measured with PTrak (cPTrak ), DustTrak (cDustTrak ), GRIMM (cGRIMM ), and SMPS (cSMPS ) for the three individual tests (black,
gray, and white) for each material combination. D is the particle diameter.
768 J. Wahlström et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 763–769

Fig. 9. Wear measured in terms of total displacement (h) of the level arm and mass loss (m) of test samples (middle and bottom) at end of the tests for the three individual
tests (black, gray, and white) for each material combination.

Fig. 10. Mean values of coefficient of friction () in the three individual tests (black, gray, and white) for each material combination.

ples. The mean value of the coefficient of friction is presented in
Fig. 10. No result was obtained from the displacement measure-
ment during the third test with the NAO 2 material. Note that the
DustTrak instrument was not connected during the first test with
the LM 1 material and the SMPS instrument was not connected
during the second test with the LM 3 and NAO 4 materials. Also
note that the SMPS was low on butanol in the first test with the
LM 3 and LM 4, and in the second test with the LM 4 materials.
Consequently the particle concentration is too low, but the particle
number distribution is correct.
4. Discussion
The low metallic pad materials showed higher coefficients of
friction, wear, and particle concentrations. The LM 4 material was
the exception as it behaved similarly to the NAO materials.
The NAO pads showed a stable coefficient of friction, reaching a
steady state level after just a few minutes, whereas the low metal-
lic pads showed an increasing coefficient of friction throughout the
major part of the test. The low metallic pads showed more aggres-
sive wear behavior, resulting in higher mass losses of both pin and
disc samples than the NAO pads. The low metallic pads also showed
more variation in wear between individual tests; the same vari-
ations were noted in the particle concentrations. Generally high
wear corresponds to high concentrations of airborne particles. The
LM 2 material showed the highest amount of wear and particle con-
centrations of the front brake materials, whereas the LM 3 material
had the highest values for the rear brake materials. The LM 2 mate-
rial seemed to generate much higher concentrations of particles
smaller than 520 nm than the other materials.
Although there were variations in the measured particle concen-
trations, similar size distributions were obtained regardless of the
pad material. The number distributions measured with the SMPS
instrument showed a dominant peak at a particle size of about
100 nm, whereas the corresponding GRIMM distributions showed
a dominant peak at a particle size of about 350 nm and two lower
peaks at 280 and 550 nm. The volume distributions measured with
the SMPS instrument show a peak at the upper limit of the measur-
ing range. The distributions measured with the GRIMM instrument
show a dominant peak at a particle size of 3 ␮m. One possible
explanation for the similarity in size distributions could be that the
majority of the airborne particles originate from the disc material.
This could be investigated by collecting the particles on filters and
analyzing their chemical composition to determine their origin.
The shape of the number and mass concentration curves mea-
sured by the PTrak and the DustTrak instruments resemble the
shape of the number concentration curves measured by the Grimm
instrument for the different size fractions. This confirms the validity
of the Grimm measurements. The DustTrak instrument measures
mass concentration, so small particles will make up only a small
 J. Wahlström et al. / Wear 268 (2010) 763–769
proportion of the mass concentration level. The shape of the Dust-
Trak curves can thus be compared with the shape of the coarse
particle concentration curve measured by the Grimm. Note that
the PTrak counts particles from 20 nm, while the lower limit for
the GRIMM is 250 nm. Thus the PTrak will record a higher particle
concentration if airborne wear particles with a particle size smaller
than 250 nm are generated.
There are only few previous studies of airborne wear particles
from disc brakes. Mosleh et al. [27] tested grey cast iron truck rotors
against semi-metallic brake pads in a pin-on-disc machine at differ-
ent loading conditions. They used a laser scattering analyzer on the
collected wear particles to obtain the size distributions and noted a
peak around 350 nm independent of sliding speed and contact pres-
sure. Furthermore, they noted a second peak that varies between
2 and 15 ␮m, depending on the pressure and sliding speed. This
difference may have occurred because their collection technique
results in a number distribution that includes all generated wear
particles, not only the particles that remain airborne.
Riediker et al. [28] tested different brake pad materials on dif-
ferent passenger cars using a chamber to seal off the brake from
the environment and presented a number distribution with peaks
around 80, 280, 350, and 550 nm. These peaks coincide with the
SMPS and GRIMM results shown here.
Sanders et al. [2] used NAO, low metallic and semi-metallic
brake pads against grey cast iron rotors in brake dynamometer
and car field tests to simulate urban driving. They noted peaks
in the number distribution around 0.8 and 1 ␮m for the NAO and
the low metallic pads, respectively. Iijima et al. [29] used a brake
dynamometer to measure brake dust from three types of NAO pads
and noted a peak in number distribution around 0.8 ␮m. Sanders
et al. [2] used a particle density of 5 g/cm3 to calculate the aerody-
namic diameter. If this density is used for our tests, the maximum
peak in particle size distribution becomes about 0.9 ␮m, compara-
ble to their result.
In this work the tests conditions simulated urban traffic con-
ditions. Due to limitations in the pin-on-disc machine it was
not possible to increase the sliding velocity above 0.7 m/s, corre-
sponding to a vehicle speed of only 7 km/h. The nominal contact
pressure was 1.2 MPa, which is considered typical for light brak-
ing sequences that serve to reduce the speed of a vehicle but
not bring it to a full stop. Since the experimental set-up has
proven to be useful, it would be of interest to conduct tests at
higher load levels to investigate the effects on airborne wear parti-
cle emissions. Temperature measurements could also be included
in the experimental set-up by adding a thermocouple to all pin
samples.
5. Conclusions
This experimental set-up was able to produce information about
the airborne wear particles produced by different combinations
of pad and rotor materials. The low metallic pads proved to be
more aggressive than the NAO pads, producing more wear and
higher concentrations of airborne wear particles. They also showed
a higher run-to-run variation with the same material combinations.
Although there are variations in the measured particle concentra-
tions, similar size distributions were obtained regardless of the
pad material. Independent of pad material, the characteristic par-
ticle number distributions of airborne brake wear particles show
maxima at about 100, 280, 350 and 550 nm.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the valuable contributions of Green
Car 2 and SAAB Automobile AB.
769
References
[1] D. Chan, G.W. Stachowiak, Review of automotive brake friction materials, Pro-
ceedings of Institution of Mechanical Engineers Part D: Journal of Automobile
Engineering 218 (2004) 953–966.
[2] P.G. Sanders, N. Xu, T.M. Dalka, M. Marico, Airborne brake wear debris: size
distributions, composition of dynamometer and vehicle test, Environmental
Science and Technology 37 (18) (2003) 4060–4069.
[3] K. Katsouyanni, G. Touloumi, E. Samoli, A. Gryparis, A. Le Tertre, Y. Monopolis,
G. Rossi, D.D. Zmirou, Confounding and effect modification in the short-term
effects of ambient particles on total mortality: results from 29 European cities
within the APHEA2 project, Epidemiology 12 (5) (2001) 521–531.
[4] J.M. Samet, F. Dominici, F.C. Curriero, I. Coursac, S.L. Zeger, Fine particulate air
pollution and mortality in 20 U.S. cities 1987-1994, New England Journal of
Medicine 343 (24) (2000) 1742–1749.
[5] C.A. Pope, R.T. Burnett, M.J. Thun, E.E. Calle, D. Krewski, K. Ito, G.D. Thurston,
Lung cancer, cardiopulmonary mortality, and long-term exposure to fine par-
ticulate air pollution, JAMA 287 (2002) 1132–1141.
[6] European Commission (EC). Air quality standards. http://ec.europa.eu/
environment/air/quality/standards.htm, 2008-12-08.
[7] Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National ambient air quality standards
(NAAQS), http://earth1.epa.gov/air/criteria.html, 2008-12-08.
[8] X. Querol, A. Alastuey, C.R. Ruiz, B. Artiñano, H.C. Hansson, R.M. Harrison, E.
Buringh, H.M. Ten Brink, M. Lutz, P. Bruckmann, P. Straeh, J. Schneider, Speci-
ation and origin of PM10 and PM2.5 in selected European cities, Atmospheric
Environment 38 (2004) 6547–6555.
[9] R. Gehrig, M. Hill, B. Buchmann, Separate determination of PM10 emission
factors of road traffic for tailpipe emissions and emissions from abrasion and
resuspension processes, International Journal of Environment and Pollution 22
(3) (2004) 312–325.
[10] A. Seaton, J. Cherrie, M. Dennekamp, K. Donaldson, J. Hurley, C. Tran, The London
underground: dust and hazards to health, Occupational and Environmental
Medicine 62 (6) (2005) 355–362.
[11] M. Branis, The contributions of ambient sources to particle pollution in spaces
and trains of the Prague underground transport system, Atmospheric Environ-
ment 40 (2) (2006) 348–356.
[12] M. Abu-Allaban, J.A. Gillies, A.W. Gertler, R. Clayton, D. Proffitt, Tailpipe, resus-
pended road dust, and brake-wear emission factors from on-road vehicles,
Atmospheric Environment 37 (37) (2003) 5283–5293.
[13] G Weckwerth, Verification of traffic-emitted aerosol components in the ambi-
ent air of Cologne (Germany), Atmospheric Environment 35 (32) (2001)
5525–5536.
[14] P.J. Blau, H.M. Meyer III, Characteristics of wear particles produced during fric-
tion tests of conventional and unconventional disc brakes materials, Wear 255
(7–12) (2003) 1261–1269.
[15] W. Österle, H. Kloss, I. Urbon, A.I. Dmitriev, Towards a better understanding of
friction brake materials, Wear 263 (2006) 1189–1201.
[16] P.J. Blau, J.J. Truhan Jr., E.A. Kenik, Effects of the exposure to corrosive salts
on the frictional behavior of gray cast iron and a titanium-based metal matrix
composite, Tribology International 40 (2007) 1335–1343.
[17] D.G. Garg, S.H. Cadle, P.A. Mulawa, P.J. Groblicki, Brake wear particle matter
emission, Environmental Science and Technology 43 (21) (2000) 4463–4469.
[18] J. Wahlström, A. Söderberg, L. Olander, U. Olofsson, A disc brake test stand
for measurements of airborne wear particles, Lubrication Science 21 (2009)
241–252.
[19] J. Wahlström, A. Söderberg, L. Olander, A. Jansson, U. Olofsson, Airborne wear
particles from passenger car disc brakes: a comparison of measurements from
field tests, a disc brake assembly test stand, and a pin-on-disc machine Proc.
IMechE Part J, Journal of Engineering Tribology 223 (2009).
[20] M. Vorbau, L. Hillemann, M. Stintz, Method for the characterization of the abra-
sion induced nanoparticle release into air from surface coatings, Journal of
Aerosol Science 40 (2009) 209–217.
[21] U. Olofsson, L. Olander, A. Jansson, A study of airborne wear particles generated
from a sliding contact, Journal of Tribology 133 (4) (2009), Index no. 044503.
[22] T.M. Peters, D. Ott, P.T. O’Shaughnessy, Comparison of the Grimm 1.108 and
1.109 portable aerosol spectrometer to the tsi 3321 aerodynamic particle sizer
for dry particles, Annals of Occupational Hygiene 50 (8) (2006) 843–850.
[23] Y. Liu, P.H. Daum, The effect of refractive index on size distributions and light
scattering coefficients derived from optical particle counters, Journal of Aerosol
Science 31 (8) (2000) 945–957.
[24] Y. Zhu, N. Yu, T. Kuhn, W. Hinds, Field comparison of P-Trak and condensation
particle counters, Aerosol Science and Technology 40 (6) (2006) 422–430.
[25] Y.H. Cheng, Comparison of the TSI Model 8520 and Grimm Series 1.108 portable
aerosol instruments used to monitor particulate matter in an iron foundry,
Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 5 (3) (2008) 157–168.
[26] E.O. Knutson, K.T. Whitby, Aerosol classification by electric mobility: apparatus
theory and applications, Journal of Aerosol Science 6 (6) (1975) 443–451.
[27] M. Mosleh, P.J. Blau, D. Dumitrescu, Characteristics and morphology of wear
particles from laboratory testing of disc brake materials, Wear 256 (11–12)
(2004) 1128–1134.
[28] M. Riediker, M. Gasser, A, Perrenoud, P. Gehr, B. Rothen-Rutishauser, A system
to test the toxicity of brake wear particles, Presented at the 12th ETH-
Conference on Combustion Generated Nanoparticles (2008).
[29] A. Iijima, K. Sato, K. Yano, M. Kato, K. Kozawa, N. Furuta, Emission factor for
antimony in brake abrasion dusts as one of the major atmospheric antimony
sources, Environmental Science and Technology 42 (8) (2008) 2937–2942.