Review of measurement techniques and methods for assessing personal exposure to airborne nanomaterials in workplaces

Abstract

Exposure to airborne agents needs to be assessed in the personal breathing zone by the use of personal measurement equipment. Specific measurement devices for assessing personal exposure to airborne nanomaterials have only become available in the recent years. They can be differentiated into direct-reading personal monitors and personal samplers that collect the airborne nanomaterials for subsequent analyses. This article presents a review of the available personal monitors and samplers and summarizes the available literature regarding their accuracy, comparability and field applicability. Due to the novelty of the instruments, the number of published studies is still relatively low. Where applicable, literature data is therefore complemented with published and unpublished results from the recently finished nanoIndEx project. The presented data show that the samplers and monitors are robust and ready for field use with sufficient accuracy and comparability. However, several limitations apply, e.g. regarding the particle size range of the personal monitors and their in general lower accuracy and comparability compared with their stationary counterparts. The decision whether a personal monitor or a personal sampler shall be preferred depends strongly on the question to tackle. In many cases, a combination of a personal monitor and a personal sampler may be the best choice to obtain conclusive results.

Contribution of mesocosm testing to a single-step and exposure-driven environmental risk assessment of engineered nanomaterials

“…It is only natural that occupational safety looms large in risk assessment, due to the large quantities, and high concentrations of nanomaterials handled early in the lifecycle in the workplace. High concentrations facilitate efficient monitoring, sometimes with personal devices (Asbach et al, 2017;Iavicoli et al, 2018). Nonetheless, nanospecific monitoring is still in its infancy and the current technology is incapable of measuring the full range of nano-sized materials (Kuhlbusch et al, 2011;Kuhlbusch et al, 2018).…”

Evaluation of a 10 nm Particle Number Portable Emissions Measurement System (PEMS)

“…Different principles of operation were under discussion to be applied as particle number detectors [4]. The most commonly used PM sensors, such as those in ambient air monitoring [28,29], exposure assessment [30][31][32][33][34], vehicle cabin air quality [35], or even filter monitoring in diesel exhaust [36][37][38], were not applicable to vehicle exhaust due to their relatively large lower size, high detection limit, or slow response time. Currently, there are two concepts for the particle sensors (detectors) inside the on-board systems: condensation particle counters (CPCs), similar to those in laboratory systems, and advanced diffusion chargers (DCs) [4,39,40].…”

Third‐Generation Solar Cells: Toxicity and Risk of Exposure

“…[147,148] Asbach et al have made a complete review of personal monitors and samplers to assess the exposure of workers to airborne NM. [149] Unfortunately, reducing the size of the measurement instrument often corresponds to a loss in accuracy compared to conventional aerosol measurement equipment.…”