Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications |
| |
Authors: | J Leskinen J Joutsensaari J Lyyränen J Koivisto J Ruusunen M Järvelä T Tuomi K Hämeri A Auvinen J Jokiniemi |
| |
Institution: | (1) Fine Particle and Aerosol Technology Laboratory, Department of Environmental Science, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland;(2) Department of Applied Physics, University of Eastern Finland, P.O. Box 1627, 70211 Kuopio, Finland;(3) VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland, Fine Particles, P.O. Box 1000, 02044 VTT, Espoo, Finland;(4) Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Nanosafety Research Center, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, 00250 Helsinki, Finland;(5) Division of Atmospheric Sciences, Department of Physics, University of Helsinki, P.O. Box 48, 00014 Helsinki, Finland;(6) Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Topeliuksenkatu 41 a A, 00250 Helsinki, Finland |
| |
Abstract: | Nanoparticles are used in many applications because of their novel properties compared to bulk material. A growing number
of employees are working with nanomaterials and their exposure to nanoparticles trough inhalation must be evaluated and monitored
continuously. However, there is an ongoing debate in the scientific literature about what are the relevant parameters to measure
to evaluate exposure to level. In this study, three types of nanoparticles (ammonium sulphate, synthesised TiO2 agglomerates and aerosolised TiO2 powder, modes in a range of 30–140 nm mobility size) were measured with commonly used aerosol measurement instruments: scanning
and fast mobility particle sizers (SMPS, FMPS), electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI), condensation particle counter (CPC)
together with nanoparticle surface area monitor (NSAM) to achieve information about the interrelations of the outputs of the
instruments. In addition, the ease of use of these instruments was evaluated. Differences between the results of different
instruments can mainly be attributed to the nature of test particles. For spherical ammonium sulphate nanoparticles, the data
from the instruments were in good agreement while larger differences were observed for particles with more complex morphology,
the TiO2 agglomerates and powder. For instance, the FMPS showed a smaller particle size, a higher number concentration and a narrower
size distribution compared with the SMPS for TiO2 particles. Thus, the type of the nanoparticle was observed to influence the data obtained from these different instruments.
Therefore, care and expertise are essential when interpreting results from aerosol measurement instruments to estimate nanoparticle
concentrations and properties. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|