Performance evaluation of newly developed portable aerosol sizers used for nanomaterial aerosol measurements

Yamada, Masatoshi; Takaya, Mitsutoshi; Ogura, Isamu

doi:10.2486/indhealth.2014-0243

Cited by 24 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The overall shape of the size‐resolved infiltration factor curve is generally consistent with other experimental (Long et al., ; Rim et al., ; Zhu et al., ) and modeling studies (El Orch et al., ; Liu and Nazaroff, ; Nazaroff, ). We should note that there is a discontinuity between ~0.1 and ~0.3 μ m that unfortunately stems from known issues with the TSI NanoScan inaccurately reporting above ~0.1 μ m when concentrations of those particle sizes are low relative to the total number concentration (Yamada et al., ). According to the manufacturer, the issues arise due to the method of fitting distributions, which is required because of the use of a unipolar charger.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using portable particle sizing instrumentation to rapidly measure the penetration of fine and ultrafine particles in unoccupied residences

Zhao

Stephens

2016

Indoor Air

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much of human exposure to particulate matter of outdoor origin occurs inside buildings, particularly in residences. The particle penetration factor through leaks in a building's exterior enclosure assembly is a key parameter that governs the infiltration of outdoor particles. However, experimental data for size-resolved particle penetration factors in real buildings, as well as penetration factors for fine particles less than 2.5 μm (PM ) and ultrafine particles less than 100 nm (UFPs), remain limited, in part because of previous limitations in instrumentation and experimental methods. Here, we report on the development and application of a modified test method that utilizes portable particle sizing instrumentation to measure size-resolved infiltration factors and envelope penetration factors for 0.01-2.5 μm particles, which are then used to estimate penetration factors for integral measures of UFPs and PM . Eleven replicate measurements were made in an unoccupied apartment unit in Chicago, IL to evaluate the accuracy and repeatability of the test procedure and solution methods. Mean estimates of size-resolved penetration factors ranged from 0.41 ± 0.14 to 0.73 ± 0.05 across the range of measured particle sizes, while mean estimates of penetration factors for integral measures of UFPs and PM were 0.67 ± 0.05 and 0.73 ± 0.05, respectively. Average relative uncertainties for all particle sizes/classes were less than 20%.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Using portable particle sizing instrumentation to rapidly measure the penetration of fine and ultrafine particles in unoccupied residences

Zhao

Stephens

2016

Indoor Air

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This could be due to the different counting efficiency of the CPC used in NanoScan and the reference SMPS, and the insufficient charging efficiency and/or non-spherical morphology of the particles in the lower size range. In practical terms, although the size distributions of the real aerosols in indoor environment measured by the NanoScan were coincident with the reference SMPS, Yamada et al (2015) indicated the count concentration of particles with size ranges of 200 to 420 nm measured by the NanoScan was incomparably lower than the reference SMPS, probably due to the countable size being close to the upper size-specific limit.…”

Section: Comparison Of Nanoscan With the Reference Smpsmentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Metrological assessments have been conducted to characterize the performance of the TSI NanoScan SMPS with respect to the well-established laboratory-based SMPS (Tritscher et al, 2013;Ruths et al, 2014;Stabile et al, 2014). In practical terms, although the size distributions of aerosols in an indoor environment measured by the NanoScan were coincident with the reference SMPS, Yamada et al (2015) indicated the count concentration of particles with size ranges of 200 to 420 nm measured by the NanoScan was incomparably lower than the reference SMPS, probably due to the countable size being close to the upper size-specific limit. However, to date, no comparison of the TSI NanoScan, the Kanomax PAMS, and the laboratory SMPS has been reported.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Experimental Comparison of Two Portable and Real-Time Size Distribution Analyzers for Nano/Submicron Aerosol Measurements

Hsiao

Lee

Chen

et al. 2016

Aerosol Air Qual. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two portable, battery powered particle size distribution analyzers, TSI NanoScan scanning mobility particle sizer (TSI NanoScan SMPS 3910, USA) and Kanomax Portable Aerosol Mobility Spectrometer (Kanomax PAMS 3300, Japan), have been recently introduced to the market. Both are compact and allow researchers to rapidly measure and monitor ambient or indoor ultrafine and nanoparticles in real time. In addition, both instruments apply the SMPS measuring scheme, utilizing a corona charger in place of a radioactive neutralizer, and are integrated with a hand-held condensation particle counter (CPC). In this study, the different designs, flow schemes, and operational settings of both instruments have been summarized based on the information released by the manufacturers and the available published literature. The performance characteristics and monitoring capability of these two portable ultrafine to nanoparticle sizers were investigated and compared to a reference TSI 3936 lab-based SMPS under identical conditions. Reasonable agreement was found between the three instruments in terms of their efficiency in sizing and counting polydispersed particles. Of the two portable analyzers, PAMS was able to provide a higher sizing resolution for monodispersed particle measurements than NanoScan, when operated under the High Mode (higher sheath to aerosol flow ratio).

show abstract

“…Figures and show the resulting size‐resolved removal efficiencies measured for each of the 50 tested HVAC filters for particle sizes 0.01 μm to 2.6 μm, which was the size range over which our aerosol generation and measurement system consistently yielded measurable values of removal efficiency with uncertainty values within the range of prior studies. There is a discontinuity between 0.1 µm and 0.3 µm because of known issues with the TSI NanoScan inaccurately reporting above 0.1 µm . Figure shows results for the 36 filters with a manufacturer‐reported MERV; Figure shows results for the 14 filters with a manufacturer‐reported MPR or FPR.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Fine and ultrafine particle removal efficiency of new residential HVAC filters

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Particle air filters used in central residential forced‐air systems are most commonly evaluated for their size‐resolved removal efficiency for particles 0.3‐10 µm using laboratory tests. Little information exists on the removal efficiency of commercially available residential filters for particles smaller than 0.3 µm or for integral measures of mass‐based aerosol concentrations (eg, PM2.5) or total number concentrations (eg, ultrafine particles, or UFPs) that are commonly used in regulatory monitoring and building measurements. Here, we measure the size‐resolved removal efficiency of 50 new commercially available residential HVAC filters installed in a recirculating central air‐handling unit in an unoccupied apartment unit using alternating upstream/downstream measurements with incense and NaCl as particle sources. Size‐resolved removal efficiencies are then used to estimate integral measures of PM2.5 and total UFP removal efficiency for the filters assuming they are challenged by 201 residential indoor particle size distributions (PSDs) gathered from the literature. Total UFP and PM2.5 removal efficiencies generally increased with manufacturer‐reported filter ratings and with filter thickness, albeit with numerous exceptions. PM2.5 removal efficiencies were more influenced by the assumption for indoor PSD than total UFP removal efficiencies. Filters with the same ratings but from different manufacturers often had different removal efficiencies for PM2.5 and total UFPs.

show abstract

Performance evaluation of newly developed portable aerosol sizers used for nanomaterial aerosol measurements

Cited by 24 publications

References 11 publications

Using portable particle sizing instrumentation to rapidly measure the penetration of fine and ultrafine particles in unoccupied residences

Using portable particle sizing instrumentation to rapidly measure the penetration of fine and ultrafine particles in unoccupied residences

Experimental Comparison of Two Portable and Real-Time Size Distribution Analyzers for Nano/Submicron Aerosol Measurements

Fine and ultrafine particle removal efficiency of new residential HVAC filters

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About