Limitations in the Use of Unipolar Charging for Electrical Mobility Sizing Instruments: A Study of the Fast Mobility Particle Sizer

A comparison between three different types of particle sizing instruments (fast mobility particle sizer, FMPS; electrical low pressure impactor, ELPI; and scanning mobility particle sizer, SMPS) and one condensation particle counter (CPC) was made to compare instrument response in terms of size distributions and number concentration. Spherical oil droplets in 39 different sizes, with geometric mean diameter (GMD) ranging from 50 nm to 820 nm, were used as test particles. Furthermore, a characterization of the FMPS unipolar charger behavior was made to analyze the measured size distributions and number concentrations. The results show that all three sizing-instruments agree well for particle sizes below 200 nm, both in terms of size and number concentration, but the FMPS deviates clearly when particle sizes exceed 200 nm. Above this, the FMPS underestimates the particle size throughout the remainder of the size range, with an apparent upper limit for GMD of 300 nm. It also estimates a higher particle number concentration as compared to the other instruments. Analysis of the 22 FMPS electrometer currents and calculation of average number of charges per particle show a diameter dependence of response of for the FMPS unipolar charger. The resulting calculated electrical mobility showed a minimum in mobility for spherical particles at 577 nm, which indicates an interfering range of particles above the measurement range, but below the cut-off of the inlet pre-separator (1 μm). The study concludes that particle distributions with a true GMD above 200 nm cannot be measured reliably with the FMPS. Copyright 2015 American Association for Aerosol Research

[1]  Günter Oberdörster,et al.  Ultrafine particles in the urban air: to the respiratory tract--and beyond? , 2002, Environmental health perspectives.

[2]  N. Fuchs,et al.  On the stationary charge distribution on aerosol particles in a bipolar ionic atmosphere , 1963 .

[3]  Matthias Voetz,et al.  Monitor for detecting and assessing exposure to airborne nanoparticles , 2010 .

[4]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  The Scanning DMA Transfer Function , 2004 .

[5]  John H. Seinfeld,et al.  Improved Inversion of Scanning DMA Data , 2002 .

[6]  M. L. Laucks.  Aerosol Technology Properties, Behavior, and Measurement of Airborne Particles , 2000 .

[7]  Naomi Zimmerman,et al.  Comparison of three nanoparticle sizing instruments: The influence of particle morphology , 2014 .

[8]  Delphine Bard,et al.  From workplace air measurement results toward estimates of exposure? Development of a strategy to assess exposure to manufactured nano-objects , 2009 .

[9]  Ming Fang,et al.  On the time-averaging of ultrafine particle number size spectra in vehicular plumes , 2006 .

[10]  A. Berner,et al.  A new electromobility spectrometer for the measurement of aerosol size distributions in the size range from 1 to 1000 nm , 1991 .

[11]  Pasi Aalto,et al.  One-Year Data of Submicron Size Modes of Tropospheric Background Aerosol in Southern Finland , 2000 .

[12]  Dirk Dahmann,et al.  Comparison of four mobility particle sizers with different time resolution for stationary exposure measurements , 2009 .

[13]  J. Seinfeld,et al.  Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics: From Air Pollution to Climate Change , 1997 .

[14]  D. Dockery,et al.  An association between air pollution and mortality in six U.S. cities. , 1993, The New England journal of medicine.

[15]  K. Mølhave,et al.  Can We Trust Real Time Measurements of Lung Deposited Surface Area Concentrations in Dust from Powder Nanomaterials , 2016 .

[16]  David B. Kittelson,et al.  Characterization of Aerosol Surface Instruments in Transition Regime , 2005 .

[17]  Jing Wang,et al.  The effect of particle morphology on unipolar diffusion charging of nanoparticle agglomerates in the transition regime , 2010 .

[18]  Kaarle Hämeri,et al.  Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[19]  Cheol-Heon Jeong,et al.  Inter-Comparison of a Fast Mobility Particle Sizer and a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Incorporating an Ultrafine Water-Based Condensation Particle Counter , 2009 .

[20]  Jorma Keskinen,et al.  Electrical low pressure impactor , 1992 .

[21]  G. M. Frick,et al.  Ion—Aerosol Attachment Coefficients and the Steady-State Charge Distribution on Aerosols in a Bipolar Ion Environment , 1986 .

[22]  Christof Asbach,et al.  Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: A review , 2011, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

[23]  Per Axel Clausen,et al.  Dustiness behaviour of loose and compacted Bentonite and organoclay powders: What is the difference in exposure risk? , 2009 .

[24]  Heinz Burtscher,et al.  Field Measurement of Particle Size and Number Concentration with the Diffusion Size Classifier (Disc) , 2008 .

[25]  A. Wiedensohler,et al.  An approximation of the bipolar charge distribution for particles in the submicron size range , 1988 .

[26]  Pasi Aalto,et al.  The particle detection efficiency of the TSI-3007 condensation particle counter , 2002 .

[27]  Julie W. Fitzpatrick,et al.  Principles for characterizing the potential human health effects from exposure to nanomaterials: elements of a screening strategy , 2005, Particle and Fibre Toxicology.

[28]  Chun-Nan Liu,et al.  The Effect of Nanoparticle Morphology on the Measurement Accuracy of Mobility Particle Sizers , 2013 .

[29]  Joakim Pagels,et al.  A set-up for field studies of respiratory tract deposition of fine and ultrafine particles in humans , 2006 .

[30]  H. Fissan,et al.  Rationale and principle of an instrument measuring lung deposited nanoparticle surface area , 2006 .

[31]  Jingchuan Zhou.  Hygroscopic Properties of Atmospheric Aerosol Particles in Various Environments , 2001 .

[32]  Jorma Keskinen,et al.  Calibration of the new electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI , 2014 .

[33]  J. Siemiatycki,et al.  0289 ”david´s cheese bread” method: workload quantitative exposure thresholds detection using adjusted hazard multivariate parametric modelling, useful in cumulative-trauma disorders prevention and within their causal assessment , 2017, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[34]  H. Kalantari,et al.  Nanotoxicology , 2013, Jundishapur journal of natural pharmaceutical products.

[35]  F. Schröder,et al.  The Particle Detection Efficiency Curve of the TSI-3010 CPC as a Function of the Temperature Difference between Saturator and Condenser , 1995 .

[36]  Heinz Burtscher,et al.  Design, Calibration, and Field Performance of a Miniature Diffusion Size Classifier , 2011 .

[37]  Kimon P. Valavanis,et al.  Examples and Case Studies , 1992 .

[38]  Chunsheng Zhao,et al.  Mobility particle size spectrometers: harmonization of technical standards and data structure to facilitate high quality long-term observations of atmospheric particle number size distributions , 2010 .

[39]  Richard C. Flagan,et al.  Scanning Electrical Mobility Spectrometer , 1989 .

[40]  P. Paatero,et al.  Evaluation of an automatic algorithm for fitting the particle number size distributions , 2005 .

[41]  Thomas Schneider,et al.  Combined single-drop and rotating drum dustiness test of fine to nanosize powders using a small drum. , 2008, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[42]  D. Bard,et al.  The effect of surface coatings on the dustiness of a calcium carbonate nanopowder , 2012, Journal of Nanoparticle Research.

[43]  Benjamin Y. H. Liu,et al.  On the performance of the electrical aerosol analyzer , 1975 .

[44]  Real-time measurement of submicron aerosol particles having a log-normal size distribution by simultaneously using unipolar diffusion charger and unipolar field charger , 2007 .

[45]  Leonidas Ntziachristos,et al.  Use of a corona charger for the characterisation of automotive exhaust aerosol , 2004 .

[46]  K. Jensen,et al.  Exposure Assessment of Four Pharmaceutical Powders Based on Dustiness and Evaluation of Damaged HEPA Filters , 2014, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[47]  Dirk Dahmann,et al.  Comparability of mobility particle sizers and diffusion chargers , 2013 .

[48]  Hannes Tammet,et al.  Electrical aerosol spectrometer of Tartu University , 1998 .

[49]  Naomi Zimmerman,et al.  A source-independent empirical correction procedure for the fast mobility and engine exhaust particle sizers , 2015 .

[50]  K. Hornsby,et al.  A Laboratory Comparison of Real-Time Measurement Methods for 10–100-nm Particle Size Distributions , 2014 .