The Aerosol Research Observation Station (AEROS)

Ardon‐Dryer, Karin; Kelley, Mary; Xia, Xueting; Dryer, Yuval

doi:10.5194/amt-15-2345-2022

Cited by 9 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is usually employed for atmospheric measurements. However, when used to characterize the size distribution in a flowing aerosol, it is common to connect a sampling tube to the inlet of the instrument [23,24].…”

Section: Optical Aerosol Spectrometer (Oas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of aerosol spectrometers : accounting for evaporation and sampling losses

Lefebvre,

Succar,

Bédard

et al. 2024

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring aerosol size distribution with precision is critical to understand the transmission of pathogens causing respiratory illnesses and to identify risk mitigation strategies. It is however a challenging task as the size of pathogen-carrying particles evolves over time due to evaporation. Although measurement techniques well established in the field of aerosol science are often used to characterize bioaerosols, their performance is seldom assessed with respect to evaporation and deposition in sampling lines. Four instruments providing aerosol size distribution were compared using oil and water-based particles. They each rely on different measurement principles: phase doppler anemometry, light scattering, electrical mobility and aerodynamic impaction. Size distributions of oil-based particles showed consistency across different measurement instruments, but significant discrepancies arose for water-based particles undergoing evaporation. These larger differences result from both evaporation and particle deposition in transit between the sampling point and the measurement inside the instrument. Phase doppler anemometry was best suited for precise size distribution measurement, as it eliminates the need for a sampling line, thereby preventing particle loss or evaporation during transit. With this instrument as a reference, empirical correction factors for evaporation and deposition were derived from dimensionless numbers and experimental data, enabling quantitative assessment of bioaerosol size distribution using different instruments. To obtain the size distribution at the source of the aerosol generation, complete drying of a salt solution was performed. Using the complete drying technique and accounting for losses, sampling instruments can reliably provide this critical information and allow for thorough risk assessment in the context of airborne transmission.

show abstract

Section: Optical Aerosol Spectrometer (Oas)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of aerosol spectrometers : accounting for evaporation and sampling losses

Lefebvre,

Succar,

Bédard

et al. 2024

Meas. Sci. Technol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dust particle size can range across several orders of magnitude (∼100 nm–100 μm, Ardon‐Dryer, Kelley, et al., 2022; Neff et al., 2013; Scheuvens & Kandler, 2014). Some of these inhalable particles have serious health effects (Martinelli et al., 2013; Tobias et al., 2019).…”

Section: Monitors May Miss Dust Events Due To Particle Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

Dust Under the Radar: Rethinking How to Evaluate the Impacts of Dust Events on Air Quality in the United States

Ardon‐Dryer,

Clifford,

Hand

2023

GeoHealth

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dust is an important and complex constituent of the atmospheric system, having significant impacts on the environment, climate, air quality, and human health. Although dust events are common across many regions of the United States, their impacts are not often prioritized in air quality mitigation strategies. We argue that there are at least three factors that result in underestimation of the social and environmental impact of dust events, making them receive less attention. These include (a) sparse monitoring stations with irregular spatial distribution in dust‐influenced regions, (b) inconsistency with dust sampling methods, and (c) sampling frequency and schedules, which can lead to missed dust events or underestimation of dust particle concentrations. Without addressing these three factors, it is challenging to characterize and understand the full air quality impacts of dust events in the United States. This paper highlights the need for additional monitoring to measure these events so that we can more fully evaluate and understand their impacts, as they are predicted to increase with climate change.

show abstract

“…The GRIMM is usually employed for atmospheric measurements. However, when applied to an aerosol flow size distribution measurement, it is common to connect a sampling tube to the inlet of the instrument [34] [35]. For this study, a 1.5 m sampling tube was connected at the inlet of the instrument for particles measurements.…”

Section: Oasmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characterization of drying bioaerosols with four size distribution measurement instruments in the context of airborne transmission

Lefebvre

Succar

Bédard

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Measuring aerosol size distributions with precision is important to understand the transmission of infectious diseases causing pneumonia-like illnesses, including Legionnaire’s disease and COVID-19. Accurate size measurement can help guide the identification of risk mitigation strategies, a challenging task as the size of pathogen carrying particles can change due to evaporation. Using oil and water-based particles, we compare four measurement instruments that provide aerosol size distributions relying on different measurement principles; phase doppler anemometry, light scattering, electrical mobility and aerodynamic impaction. The size distributions obtained from the different measurement instruments are consistent for oil-based particles but differ significantly for particles experiencing evaporation. Experiments were conducted to quantify the differences in measurement caused by evaporation as well as the measurement losses. The size range covered by the four instruments is from 0.025 to 10 µm. Finally, an approach based on the complete drying of a salt solution is presented to obtain the size distribution at the source of the aerosol generation. Understanding of the infectious dose and the pathogen concentration at the source, the most dangerous size ranges of the aerosols can thus be determined, and actions can be taken to reduce the propagation of these particles.

show abstract

The Aerosol Research Observation Station (AEROS)

Cited by 9 publications

References 58 publications

Comparison of aerosol spectrometers : accounting for evaporation and sampling losses

Comparison of aerosol spectrometers : accounting for evaporation and sampling losses

Dust Under the Radar: Rethinking How to Evaluate the Impacts of Dust Events on Air Quality in the United States

Characterization of drying bioaerosols with four size distribution measurement instruments in the context of airborne transmission

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About