Comparability of Portable Nanoparticle Exposure Monitors*,

Skip Navigation
CHRISTOF ASBACH1, HEINZ KAMINSKI1, DANIEL VON BARANY1, THOMAS A.J. KUHLBUSCH1, CHRISTIAN MONZ2, NICO DZIUROWITZ3, JOHANNES PELZER4, KATJA VOSSEN4, KNUT BERLIN5, SILVIO DIETRICH5, UWE GÖTZ6, HEINZ-JÜRGEN KIESLING7, RUDOLF SCHIERL8 and DIRK DAHMANN2

1 Institute of Energy and Environmental Technology 47229 Duisburg, Germany;

2 Institute for the Research on Hazardous Substances (IGF) 44789 Bochum, Germany;

3 Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) Berlin, Germany;

4 Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of the German Social Accident Insurance (IFA) 53757 Sankt Augustin, Germany;

5 Bayrisches Landesamt für Gesundheit und Lebensmittelsicherheit (LGL) 91058 Erlangen, Germany;

6 BASF SE 67063 Ludwigshafen, Germany;

7 Bayer Technology Services 51368 Leverkusen, Germany;

8 Institute for Occupational, Social and Environmental Medicine, University Munich 80336 Munich, Germany ? *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +49 2065 418 209; fax: +49 2065 418 211 *based on presentations at the INRS Symposium on Risks of Nanoparticles and Nanomaterials, Nancy, France, April 2011. Received April 5, 2012. Revision received March 8, 2012. Accepted March 10, 2012. Five different portable instrument types to monitor exposure to nanoparticles were subject to an intensive intercomparison measurement campaign. Four of them were based on electrical diffusion charging to determine the number concentration or lung deposited surface area (LDSA) concentration of airborne particles. Three out of these four also determined the mean particle size. The fifth instrument type was a handheld condensation particle counter (CPC). The instruments were challenged with three different log-normally distributed test aerosols with modal diameters between 30 and 180nm, varying in particle concentration and morphology. The CPCs showed the highest comparability with deviations on the order of only ±5%, independent of the particle sizes, but with a strictly limited upper number concentration. The diffusion charger-based instruments showed comparability on the order of ±30% for number concentration, LDSA concentration, and mean particle size, when the specified particle size range of the instruments matched the size range of the aerosol particles, whereas significant deviations were found when a large amount of particles exceeded the upper or lower detection limit. In one case the reported number concentration was even increased by a factor of 6.9 when the modal diameter of the test aerosol exceeded the specified upper limit of the instrument. A general dependence of the measurement accuracy of all devices on particle morphology was not detected.

Keywords: © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene SocietyThis ArticleAnn Occup Hyg (2012) 56 (5): 606-621. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mes033 PubMed citationArticles by ASBACH, C.Articles by KAMINSKI, H.Articles by VON BARANY, D.Articles by KUHLBUSCH, T. A.Articles by MONZ, C.Articles by DZIUROWITZ, N.Articles by PELZER, J.Articles by VOSSEN, K.Articles by BERLIN, K.Articles by DIETRICH, S.Articles by GÖTZ, U.Articles by KIESLING, H. J.Articles by SCHIERL, R.Articles by DAHMANN, D.Current Issue
Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.

View the original article here