Metrological assessment of a portable analyzer for monitoring the particle size distribution of ultrafine particles.

Adverse health effects caused by worker exposure to ultrafine particles have been detected in recent years. The scientific community focuses on the assessment of ultrafine aerosols in different microenvironments in order to determine the related worker exposure/dose levels. To this end, particle size distribution measurements have to be taken along with total particle number concentrations. The latter are obtainable through hand-held monitors. A portable particle size distribution analyzer (Nanoscan SMPS 3910, TSI Inc.) was recently commercialized, but so far no metrological assessment has been performed to characterize its performance with respect to well-established laboratory-based instruments such as the scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) spectrometer. The present paper compares the aerosol monitoring capability of the Nanoscan SMPS to the laboratory SMPS in order to evaluate whether the Nanoscan SMPS is suitable for field experiments designed to characterize particle exposure in different microenvironments. Tests were performed both in a Marple calm air chamber, where fresh diesel particulate matter and atomized dioctyl phthalate particles were monitored, and in microenvironments, where outdoor, urban, indoor aged, and indoor fresh aerosols were measured. Results show that the Nanoscan SMPS is able to properly measure the particle size distribution for each type of aerosol investigated, but it overestimates the total particle number concentration in the case of fresh aerosols. In particular, the test performed in the Marple chamber showed total concentrations up to twice those measured by the laboratory SMPS-likely because of the inability of the Nanoscan SMPS unipolar charger to properly charge aerosols made up of aggregated particles. Based on these findings, when field test exposure studies are conducted, the Nanoscan SMPS should be used in tandem with a condensation particle counter in order to verify and correct the particle size distribution data.

[1]  Lidia Morawska,et al.  Exposure to welding particles in automotive plants , 2011 .

[2]  J. Froines,et al.  Redox and electrophilic properties of vapor- and particle-phase components of ambient aerosols. , 2010, Environmental research.

[3]  P. Avino,et al.  Fast evolution of urban ultrafine particles: Implications for deposition doses in the human respiratory system , 2012 .

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

[5]  L Morawska,et al.  Individual dose and exposure of Italian children to ultrafine particles. , 2012, The Science of the total environment.

[6]  B. Brunekreef,et al.  Black Smoke as an Additional Indicator to Evaluate the Health Benefits of Traffic-related Policy Measures: A Systematic Review of the Health Effects of Black Smoke Compared to PM Mass , 2011 .

[7]  W. A. Hoppel.  Determination of the aerosol size distribution from the mobility distribution of the charged fraction of aerosols , 1978 .

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

[9]  B. Brunekreef,et al.  Respiratory health effects of ultrafine and fine particle exposure in cyclists , 2009, Occupational and Environmental Medicine.

[10]  Albert Ansmann,et al.  A case of extreme particulate matter concentrations over Central Europe caused by dust emitted over the southern Ukraine , 2008 .

[11]  Dirk Dahmann,et al.  Comparability of portable nanoparticle exposure monitors. , 2012, The Annals of occupational hygiene.

[12]  L. Stabile,et al.  Uncertainty Budget of the SMPS–APS System in the Measurement of PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 , 2009 .

[13]  Peter H. McMurry,et al.  A review of atmospheric aerosol measurements , 2000 .

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

[15]  Ulrich Franck,et al.  The effect of particle size on cardiovascular disorders--the smaller the worse. , 2011, The Science of the total environment.

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

[17]  David Y. H. Pui,et al.  The Effect of Particle Pre-Existing Charge on Unipolar Charging and Its Implication on Electrical Aerosol Measurements , 2009 .

[18]  Luca Stabile,et al.  Influence of measurement frequency on the evaluation of short-term dose of sub-micrometric particles during indoor and outdoor generation events , 2013 .

[19]  T. Xia,et al.  Toxic Potential of Materials at the Nanolevel , 2006, Science.

[20]  L. Morawska,et al.  Volatility Characterization of Cooking-Generated Aerosol Particles , 2011 .

[21]  P. Mcmurry,et al.  Structural Properties of Diesel Exhaust Particles Measured by Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM): Relationships to Particle Mass and Mobility , 2004 .

[22]  L. Stabile,et al.  Characteristics of particles and black carbon emitted by combustion of incenses, candles and anti-mosquito products , 2012 .

[23]  Who Europe.  Air Quality Guidelines Global Update 2005: Particulate Matter, ozone, nitrogen dioxide and sulfur dioxide , 2006 .

[24]  Charging Efficiency of the Electrical Low Pressure Impactor's Corona Charger: Influence of the Fractal Morphology of Nanoparticle Aggregates and Uncertainty Analysis of Experimental Results , 2009 .

[25]  Nick Collings,et al.  Monte-Carlo simulation of unipolar diffusion charging for spherical and non-spherical particles , 2004 .

[26]  Güunter Oberdürster.  Toxicology of ultrafine particles: in vivo studies , 2000, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[27]  Jing Wang,et al.  Measurement of Nanoparticle Agglomerates by Combined Measurement of Electrical Mobility and Unipolar Charging Properties , 2010 .

[28]  D. Dockery,et al.  Health Effects of Fine Particulate Air Pollution: Lines that Connect , 2006, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

[29]  Arthur L. Miller,et al.  Toward Developing A New Occupational Exposure Metric Approach for Characterization of Diesel Aerosols , 2012, Aerosol science and technology : the journal of the American Association for Aerosol Research.

[30]  Lidia Morawska,et al.  Particle emission factors during cooking activities , 2009 .

[31]  Jugal K. Agarwal,et al.  Continuous flow, single-particle-counting condensation nucleus counter , 1980 .

[32]  Heinz Fissan,et al.  Determination of particle size distributions by means of an electrostatic classifier , 1983 .

[33]  J. Pounds,et al.  Macrophage responses to silica nanoparticles are highly conserved across particle sizes. , 2009, Toxicological sciences : an official journal of the Society of Toxicology.

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

[35]  Torsten Tritscher,et al.  NanoScan SMPS – A Novel, Portable Nanoparticle Sizing and Counting Instrument , 2013 .

[36]  L. Sheppard,et al.  Long-term exposure to air pollution and incidence of cardiovascular events in women. , 2007, The New England journal of medicine.

[37]  P. Grandjean,et al.  No changes in lymphocyte muscarinic receptors and platelet monoamine oxidase-B examined as surrogate central nervous system biomarkers in a Faroese children cohort prenatally exposed to methylmercury and polychlorinated biphenyls , 2009, Biomarkers : biochemical indicators of exposure, response, and susceptibility to chemicals.

[38]  Uwe Schlink,et al.  Respiratory effects of indoor particles in young children are size dependent. , 2011, The Science of the total environment.

[39]  H. Fissan,et al.  Conceptual limitations and extensions of lung-deposited Nanoparticle Surface Area Monitor (NSAM) , 2009 .

[40]  M. Maricq.  Thermal equilibration of soot charge distributions by coagulation , 2008 .

[41]  Xiaoliang Wang,et al.  A Novel Optical Instrument for Estimating Size Segregated Aerosol Mass Concentration in Real Time , 2009 .

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

[43]  H. Schulz,et al.  Dosimetry and toxicology of inhaled ultrafine particles , 2009, Biomarkers : biochemical indicators of exposure, response, and susceptibility to chemicals.

[44]  V. Marple,et al.  An Aerosol Chamber for Instrument Evaluation and Calibration , 1983 .

[45]  S. Kaufman,et al.  A new corona-based charger for aerosol particles , 2000 .

[46]  P. Schulte,et al.  Occupational exposure limits for nanomaterials: state of the art , 2010 .

[47]  K. T. Whitby,et al.  Aerosol classification by electric mobility: apparatus, theory, and applications , 1975 .

[48]  S. Friedlander,et al.  Nanoparticle aggregate volume determination by electrical mobility analysis: Test of idealized aggregate theory using aerosol particle mass analyzer measurements , 2008 .

[49]  L. Morawska,et al.  A comparison of submicrometer particle dose between Australian and Italian people. , 2012, Environmental pollution.

[50]  A. Peters,et al.  Respiratory effects are associated with the number of ultrafine particles. , 1997, American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine.

[51]  L. Morawska,et al.  Tracheobronchial and alveolar dose of submicrometer particles for different population age groups in Italy , 2011 .

[52]  Luca Stabile,et al.  Ultrafine Particle Generation through Atomization Technique: The Influence of the Solution , 2013 .

[53]  K. BéruBé,et al.  Characterisation of airborne particles and associated organic components produced from incense burning , 2011, Analytical and bioanalytical chemistry.

[54]  Nelson P. Bryner,et al.  Measurement of the 100 nm NIST SRM 1963 by differential mobility analysis , 1999 .

[55]  Nelson P. Bryner,et al.  Use of the Electrostatic Classification Method to Size 0.1 μm SRM Particles—A Feasibility Study , 1991, Journal of research of the National Institute of Standards and Technology.

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

[57]  Robert P. Vinson,et al.  Performance of a new personal respirable dust monitor for mine use , 2004 .

[58]  James D Noll,et al.  Sampling Results of the Improved SKC Diesel Particulate Matter Cassette , 2005, Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene.

[59]  D. Dockery,et al.  Health Effects of Fine Particulate Air Pollution: Lines that Connect , 2006, Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association.

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