Performance study of portable devices for the real-time measurement of airborne particle number concentration and size (distribution)

Bau, Sébastien; Payet, Raphaël; Witschger, Olivier; Jankowska, E.

doi:10.1088/1742-6596/838/1/012001

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 31 publications

(30 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The DiSCminis showed good agreement between all four instruments when measuring at the same location ( Fig. 2) as has also been observed in previous studies (Bau et al, 2017). The correlations as compared to average values measured by the DiSCminis were for N from 0.63 to 0.87, LSDA from 0.69 to 0.90 and D p,DM from 0.60 to 0.77 (Table S6, Supporting Information).…”

Section: Measurement Strategysupporting

confidence: 86%

Occupational exposure during handling and loading of halloysite nanotubes – A case study of counting nanofibers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A B S T R A C THalloysite nanotubes (HNTs) are abundant naturally-occurring hollow aluminosilicate clay mineral fibers with a typical diameter < 100 nm and an aspect ratio of up to 200. Here we assessed the potential inhalation exposure to HNTs in an industrial research laboratory. Inside a fume hood, ten times 100 g of HNTs were poured at rate of 0.5 kg min . Inside the fume hood, the respirable mass concentration was 143 μg m −3 including background particles.Outside the fume hood we did not measure elevated concentrations. We classified 1895 particles according to their length and aspect ratio. Five particles were in aspect ratio > 3 and in length > 2 μm. These particles were agglomerated and/or aggregated particles where the longest individual fiber was 2 μm in length. The occupational exposure limits for refractory mineral fibers vary from 0.1 to 2 fibers cm −3. Following standard protocols for fiber analysis, detection of 0.1 fibers cm −3 would require analysis on 4 × 10 4 images when the filter loading is good. Thus, the fiber sampling and quantification procedures needs to be improved significantly if nanofibers < 100 nm in diameter are included in regulatory exposure assessment. Due to very limited toxicological information of HNTs we recommend avoiding inhalation exposure.

show abstract

Section: Measurement Strategysupporting

confidence: 86%

Occupational exposure during handling and loading of halloysite nanotubes – A case study of counting nanofibers

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To put the results of this study into perspective, Figure 8 summarizes the results of other studies from the literature with similar materials and sizes: silver [83], salt [15,44,45,84,85], vehicle exhaust [25,26,44,45,86,87], and ambient [25,26,88,89]. Table A1 in Appendix A presents the reference instruments, the particle materials, the GMD, and the concentration of aerosols used in these studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All studies used the "Default" EEPS matrix, except those with a black frame that used the "Soot" EEPS matrix. Data from: silver [83], salt [15,44,45,84,85], vehicle exhaust [25,26,44,45,86,87], and ambient [25,26,88,89].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of Particle Sizers and Counters with Soot-like, Salt, and Silver Particles

Giechaskiel

Melas

2022

Atmosphere

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vehicle emission regulations in Europe and many Asian countries include a particle number limit. The number concentration is measured, typically, with condensation particle counters (CPCs). For research purposes, the size distributions provide useful information. Scanning mobility particle sizers (SMPSs) accurately provide the size distribution but are not suitable for transient aerosol. Engine (fast) exhaust particle sizers (EEPSs) cover this gap, but with less accuracy. Fast size distribution instruments are commonly used in the research and development of engines. In the last few years, instrument algorithms have been improved, but studies assessing the improvements are limited, in particular in their lower size range, around 10–20 nm, and for soot-like aerosol. In this paper, we compared the three instruments using salt, silver, diffusion flame soot (CAST), and spark discharge graphite particles. Moreover, vehicle exhaust number concentration measurements with EEPSs over a seven-year period were presented. In terms of particle concentration, EEPS overestimated, on average, 25% compared to CPC, in agreement with previous studies. Its accuracy for mean particle size determination was better than 5 nm compared to SMPS. The agreement between the instruments was satisfactory but the uncertainty increased at low concentrations and larger particle sizes, showing that there is still room for further improvements. Experimental challenges, such as low concentration levels of modern vehicles, losses in the diluters, use of photometric mode by the CPCs, and the material impact, are also discussed.

show abstract

“…Additionally, measuring the exposure to ENM, such as the measurement of aerosolized ENM in the breathing zone of an individual, is challenging, requiring the use of reliable and accurate portable detectors. Much effort has been made in recent years regarding the development of such instruments, the results of which are promising [10][11][12]; however, there are still certain limitations, as these instruments often report large deviations in particle concentrations, underestimate particle diameters [13,14], and generally have lower accuracy and comparability compared with their stationary counterparts [10]. Furthermore, high-hazard substances may require specific chemical particle analyses if they pose a risk at concentrations at or below the usual mass or number background concentrations.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

NanoSafe III: A User Friendly Safety Management System for Nanomaterials in Laboratories and Small Facilities

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research in nanoscience continues to bring forward a steady stream of new nanomaterials and processes that are being developed and marketed. While scientific committees and expert groups deal with the harmonization of terminology and legal challenges, risk assessors in research labs continue to have to deal with the gap between regulations and rapidly developing information. The risk assessment of nanomaterial processes is currently slow and tedious because it is performed on a material-by-material basis. Safety data sheets are rarely available for (new) nanomaterials, and even when they are, they often lack nano-specific information. Exposure estimations or measurements are difficult to perform and require sophisticated and expensive equipment and personal expertise. The use of banding-based risk assessment tools for laboratory environments is an efficient way to evaluate the occupational risks associated with nanomaterials. Herein, we present an updated version of our risk assessment tool for working with nanomaterials based on a three-step control banding approach and the precautionary principle. The first step is to determine the hazard band of the nanomaterial. A decision tree allows the assignment of the material to one of three bands based on known or expected effects on human health. In the second step, the work exposure is evaluated and the processes are classified into three “nano” levels for each specific hazard band. The work exposure is estimated using a laboratory exposure model. The result of this calculation in combination with recommended occupational exposure limits (rOEL) for nanomaterials and an additional safety factor gives the final “nano” level. Finally, we update the technical, organizational, and personal protective measures to allow nanomaterial processes to be established in research environments.

show abstract

Performance study of portable devices for the real-time measurement of airborne particle number concentration and size (distribution)

Cited by 6 publications

References 31 publications

Occupational exposure during handling and loading of halloysite nanotubes – A case study of counting nanofibers

Occupational exposure during handling and loading of halloysite nanotubes – A case study of counting nanofibers

Comparison of Particle Sizers and Counters with Soot-like, Salt, and Silver Particles

NanoSafe III: A User Friendly Safety Management System for Nanomaterials in Laboratories and Small Facilities

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About