Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.shaw.2016.08.001

Comparison of Real Time Nanoparticle Monitoring Instruments in the Workplaces  

Ham, Seunghon (Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Institute of Health and Environment, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
Lee, Naroo (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency)
Eom, Igchun (Risk Assessment Division, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Lee, Byoungcheun (Risk Assessment Division, National Institute of Environmental Research)
Tsai, Perng-Jy (Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Medical College, National Cheng Kung University)
Lee, Kiyoung (Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Institute of Health and Environment, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
Yoon, Chungsik (Department of Environmental Health Sciences and Institute of Health and Environment, Graduate School of Public Health, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Safety and Health at Work / v.7, no.4, 2016 , pp. 381-388 More about this Journal
Abstract
Background: Relationships among portable scanning mobility particle sizer (P-SMPS), condensation particle counter (CPC), and surface area monitor (SAM), which are different metric measurement devices, were investigated, and two widely used research grade (RG)-SMPSs were compared to harmonize the measurement protocols. Methods: Pearson correlation analysis was performed to compare the relation between P-SMPS, CPC, and SAM and two common RG-SMPS. Results: For laboratory and engineered nanoparticle (ENP) workplaces, correlation among devices showed good relationships. Correlation among devices was fair in unintended nanoparticle (UNP)-emitting workplaces. This is partly explained by the fact that shape of particles was not spherical, although calibration of sampling instruments was performed using spherical particles and the concentration was very high at the UNP workplaces to allow them to aggregate more easily. Chain-like particles were found by scanning electron microscope in UNP workplaces. The CPC or SAM could be used as an alternative instrument instead of SMPS at the ENP-handling workplaces. At the UNP workplaces, where concentration is high, real-time instruments should be used with caution. There are significant differences between the two SMPSs tested. TSI SMPS showed about 20% higher concentration than the Grimm SMPS in all workplaces. Conclusions: For nanoparticle measurement, CPC and SAM might be useful to find source of emission at laboratory and ENP workplaces instead of P-SMPS in the first stage. An SMPS is required to measure with high accuracy. Caution is necessary when comparing data from different nanoparticle measurement devices and RG-SMPSs.
Keywords
condensation particle counter; nanoparticle exposure assessment; relationship; scanning mobility particle sizer; surface area monitor;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Reiman MP, Manske RC. Functional testing in human performance. Champaign (IL): Human Kinetics; 2009.
2 Tritscher T, Beeston M, Zerrath AF, Elzey S, Krinke TJ, Filimundi E, Bischof OF. NanoScan SMPSeA novel, portable nanoparticle sizing and counting instrument. J Phys 2013;429:012061.
3 Mulholland GW, Donnelly MK, Hagwood CR, Kukuck SR, Hackley VA, Pui DY. Measurement of 100 nm and 60 nm particle standards by differential mobility analysis. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 2006;111:257-312.   DOI
4 Kinney PD, Pui DY. Use of the electrostatic classification method to 0.1 tm SRM particles-a feasibility study. J Res Natl Inst Stand Technol 1991;96:147-76.   DOI
5 Ham S, Kim S, Lee N, Kim P, Eom I, Tsai PJ, Lee K, Yoon C. Comparison of nanoparticle exposure levels based on facility typedsmall-scale laboratories, large-scale manufacturing workplaces, and unintended nanoparticle-emitting workplaces. Aero Air Qual Res 2015;15:1967-78.
6 Zimmerman N, Godri Pollitt KJ, Jeong C-H, Wang JM, Jung T, Cooper JM, Wallace JS, Evans GJ. Comparison of three nanoparticle sizing instruments: the influence of particle morphology. Atmos Environ 2014;86:140-7.   DOI
7 Liu PS, Deshler T. Causes of concentration differences between a scanning mobility particle sizer and a condensation particle counter. Aero Sci Tech 2003;37:916-23.   DOI
8 Lawrence I, Lin K. A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility. Biometrics 1989;45:255-68.   DOI
9 Oberdorster G, Oberdorster E, Oberdorster J. Nanotoxicology: an emerging discipline evolving from studies of ultrafine particles. Env Health Persp 2005;113:823-39.   DOI
10 Wittmaack K. In search of the most relevant parameter for quantifying lung inflammatory response to nanoparticle exposure: particle number, surface area, or what? Env Health Persp 2007;115:187-94.
11 Maynard AD. Nanotechnology: the next big thing, or much ado about nothing? Ann Occup Hyg 2007;51:1-12.
12 Ham S, Yoon C, Lee E, Lee K, Park D, Chung E, Kim P, Lee B. Task-based exposure assessment of nanoparticles in the workplace. J Nanopart Res 2012;14:1-17.
13 Park JY, Raynor PC, Maynard AD, Eberly LE, Ramachandran G. Comparison of two estimation methods for surface area concentration using number concentration and mass concentration of combustion-related ultrafine particles. Atmos Env 2009;43:502-9.   DOI
14 Fierz M, Weimer S, Burtscher H. Design and performance of an optimized electrical diffusion battery. J Aero Sci 2009;40:152-63.   DOI
15 Tsai C, Huang C, Chen S, Ho C, Huang C, Chen C, Chang C, Tsai S, Ellenbecker M. Exposure assessment of nano-sized and respirable particles at different workplaces. J Nanopart Res 2011;13:4161-72.   DOI
16 Maynard AD, Aitken RJ. Assessing exposure to airborne nanomaterials: Current abilities and future requirements. Nanotoxicology 2007;1:26-41.   DOI
17 Kaminski H, Beyer M, Fissan H, Asbach C, Kuhlbusch TA. Measurements of nanoscale $TiO_2$ and $Al_2O_3$ in industrial workplace environmentsemethodology and results. Aero Air Qual Res 2015;15:129-41.
18 Heitbrink WA, Evans DE, Ku BK, Maynard AD, Slavin TJ, Peters TM. Relationships among particle number, surface area, and respirable mass concentrations in automotive engine manufacturing. J Occup Env Hyg 2008;6:19-31.   DOI
19 Asbach C, Kaminski H, Von Barany D, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Monz C, Dziirowitz N, Pelzer J, Vossen K, Berlin K, Dietrich S, Gotz U, Kiesling HJ, Schierl R, Dahmann D. Comparability of portable nanoparticle exposure monitors. Ann Occup Hyg 2012;56:606-21.
20 Watson JG, Chow JC, Sodeman DA, Lowenthal DH, Chang MCO, Park K, Wang X. Comparison of four scanning mobility particle sizers at the Fresno Supersite. Particuology 2011;9:204-9.   DOI
21 Wiedensohler A, Birmili W, Nowak A, Sonntag A, Weinhold K, Merkel M, Wehner B, Tuch T, Pfeifer S, Fiebig M. Mobility particle size spectrometers: harmonization of technical standards and data structure to facilitate high quality long-term observations of atmospheric particle number size distributions. Atmos Meas Tech 2012;5:657-85.   DOI
22 Joshi M, Sapra B, Khan A, Tripathi S, Shamjad P, Gupta T, Mayya Y. Harmonisation of nanoparticle concentration measurements using GRIMM and TSI scanning mobility particle sizers. J Nanopart Res 2012;14:1-14.
23 Asbach C, Kaminski H, Fissan H, Monz C, Dahmann D, Mulhopt S, Paur HR, Kiesling HJ, Herrmann F, Voetz M. Comparison of four mobility particle sizers with different time resolution for stationary exposure measurements. J Nanopart Res 2009;11:1593-609.   DOI