Literature DB >> 28688352

Inter-comparison of personal monitors for nanoparticles exposure at workplaces and in the environment.

Ana Maria Todea1, Stefanie Beckmann2, Heinz Kaminski2, Delphine Bard3, Sébastien Bau4, Simon Clavaguera5, Dirk Dahmann6, Hélène Dozol5, Nico Dziurowitz7, Karine Elihn8, Martin Fierz9, Göran Lidén8, Asmus Meyer-Plath7, Christian Monz6, Volker Neumann6, Johannes Pelzer10, Barbara Katrin Simonow7, Patrick Thali11, Ilse Tuinman12, Arjan van der Vleuten13, Huub Vroomen13, Christof Asbach2.   

Abstract

Personal monitors based on unipolar diffusion charging (miniDiSC/DiSCmini, NanoTracer, Partector) can be used to assess the individual exposure to nanoparticles in different environments. The charge acquired by the aerosol particles is nearly proportional to the particle diameter and, by coincidence, also nearly proportional to the alveolar lung-deposited surface area (LDSA), the metric reported by all three instruments. In addition, the miniDiSC/DiSCmini and the NanoTracer report particle number concentration and mean particle size. In view of their use for personal exposure studies, the comparability of these personal monitors was assessed in two measurement campaigns. Altogether 29 different polydisperse test aerosols were generated during the two campaigns, covering a large range of particle sizes, morphologies and concentrations. The data provided by the personal monitors were compared with those obtained from reference instruments: a scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) for LDSA and mean particle size and a ultrafine particle counter (UCPC) for number concentration. The results indicated that the LDSA concentrations and the mean particle sizes provided by all investigated instruments in this study were in the order of ±30% of the reference value obtained from the SMPS when the particle sizes of the test aerosols generated were within 20-400nm and the instruments were properly calibrated. Particle size, morphology and concentration did not have a major effect within the aforementioned limits. The comparability of the number concentrations was found to be slightly worse and in the range of ±50% of the reference value obtained from the UCPC. In addition, a minor effect of the particle morphology on the number concentration measurements was observed. The presence of particles >400nm can drastically bias the measurement results of all instruments and all metrics determined.
Copyright © 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords:  Alveolar lung deposited surface area concentration; Comparability; Mean particle size; Number concentration; Personal monitors

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28688352     DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.041

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Sci Total Environ        ISSN: 0048-9697            Impact factor:   7.963


  6 in total

1.  Particle emissions from mobile sources: Discussion of ultrafine particle emissions and definition.

Authors:  David Kittelson; Imad Khalek; Joseph McDonald; Jeffrey Stevens; Robert Giannelli
Journal:  J Aerosol Sci       Date:  2022-01       Impact factor: 4.586

2.  A Real-Time Comparison of Four Particulate Matter Size Fractions in the Personal Breathing Zone of Paris Subway Workers: A Six-Week Prospective Study.

Authors:  Rémy Pétremand; Guillaume Suárez; Sophie Besançon; J Hugo Dil; Irina Guseva Canu
Journal:  Sustainability       Date:  2022-05-15       Impact factor: 3.889

3.  Additive Manufacturing for Occupational Hygiene: A Comprehensive Review of Processes, Emissions, & Exposures.

Authors:  A B Stefaniak; S Du Preez; J L Du Plessis
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2021-06-17       Impact factor: 6.393

4.  Evaluation of a 10 nm Particle Number Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS).

Authors:  Barouch Giechaskiel; Athanasios Mamakos; Joseph Woodburn; Andrzej Szczotka; Piotr Bielaczyc
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2019-12-14       Impact factor: 3.576

5.  Determination of the Concentration of Ultrafine Aerosol Using an Ionization Sensor.

Authors:  Szymon Jakubiak; Przemysław Oberbek
Journal:  Nanomaterials (Basel)       Date:  2021-06-21       Impact factor: 5.076

6.  Emissions and exposures of graphene nanomaterials, titanium dioxide nanofibers, and nanoparticles during down-stream industrial handling.

Authors:  Karin Lovén; Sara M Franzén; Christina Isaxon; Maria E Messing; Johan Martinsson; Anders Gudmundsson; Joakim Pagels; Maria Hedmer
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-16       Impact factor: 5.563

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.