Performance Comparison of Field Portable Instruments to the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Using Monodispersed and Polydispersed Sodium Chloride Aerosols.
Saved in:
| Title: | Performance Comparison of Field Portable Instruments to the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Using Monodispersed and Polydispersed Sodium Chloride Aerosols. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Vo, Evanly1 eav8@cdc.gov, Horvatin, Matthew2, Zhuang, Ziqing1 |
| Source: | Annals of Work Exposures & Health. Jul2018, Vol. 62 Issue 6, p711-720. 10p. 2 Diagrams, 3 Charts, 3 Graphs. |
| Subjects: | Aerosol analysis, Salt analysis, Industrial hygiene, Industrial safety, Medical equipment, Particles, Breathing apparatus |
| Abstract: | This study compared the performance of the following field portable aerosol instrument sets to performance of the reference Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS): the handheld CPC-3007, the portable aerosol mobility spectrometer (PAMS), the NanoScan scanning mobility particle sizer (NanoScan SMPS) combined with an optical particle sizer (OPS). Tests were conducted with monodispersed and polydispersed aerosols. Monodispersed aerosols were controlled at the approximate concentration of 1 × 105 particles cm−3 and four monodispersed particle sizes of 30, 60, 100, and 300 nm were selected and classified for the monodispersed aerosol test, while three different steady-state concentration levels (low, medium, and high: ~8 × 103, 5 × 104, and 1 × 105 particles cm−3, respectively) were selected for the polydispersed aerosol test. For all four monodispersed aerosol sizes, particle concentrations measured with the NanoScan SMPS were within 13% of those measured with the reference SMPS. Particle concentrations measured with the PAMS were within 25% of those measured with the reference SMPS. Concentrations measured with the handheld condensation particle counter were within 30% of those measured with the reference SMPS. For the polydispersed aerosols, the particle sizes and concentrations measured with the NanoScan-OPS compared most favorably with those measured with the reference SMPS for three different concentration levels of low, medium, and high (concentration deviations ≤10% for all three concentration levels; deviations of particle size ≤4%). Although the particle-size comparability between the PAMS and the reference SMPS was quite reasonable with the deviations within 10%, the polydispersed particle concentrations measured with the PAMS were within 36% of those measured with the reference SMPS. The results of this evaluation will be useful for selecting a suitable portable device for our next workplace study phase of respiratory protection assessment. This study also provided the advantages and limitations of each individual portable instrument and therefore results from this study can be used by industrial hygienists and safety professionals, with appropriate caution, when selecting a suitable portable instrument for aerosol particle measurement in nanotechnology workplaces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Annals of Work Exposures & Health is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 1 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: egs DbLabel: Engineering Source An: 130894907 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Performance Comparison of Field Portable Instruments to the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Using Monodispersed and Polydispersed Sodium Chloride Aerosols. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Vo%2C+Evanly%22">Vo, Evanly</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><i> eav8@cdc.gov</i><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Horvatin%2C+Matthew%22">Horvatin, Matthew</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Zhuang%2C+Ziqing%22">Zhuang, Ziqing</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Annals+of+Work+Exposures+%26+Health%22">Annals of Work Exposures & Health</searchLink>. Jul2018, Vol. 62 Issue 6, p711-720. 10p. 2 Diagrams, 3 Charts, 3 Graphs. – Name: Subject Label: Subjects Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Aerosol+analysis%22">Aerosol analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Salt+analysis%22">Salt analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industrial+hygiene%22">Industrial hygiene</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industrial+safety%22">Industrial safety</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Medical+equipment%22">Medical equipment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Particles%22">Particles</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Breathing+apparatus%22">Breathing apparatus</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: This study compared the performance of the following field portable aerosol instrument sets to performance of the reference Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS): the handheld CPC-3007, the portable aerosol mobility spectrometer (PAMS), the NanoScan scanning mobility particle sizer (NanoScan SMPS) combined with an optical particle sizer (OPS). Tests were conducted with monodispersed and polydispersed aerosols. Monodispersed aerosols were controlled at the approximate concentration of 1 × 105 particles cm−3 and four monodispersed particle sizes of 30, 60, 100, and 300 nm were selected and classified for the monodispersed aerosol test, while three different steady-state concentration levels (low, medium, and high: ~8 × 103, 5 × 104, and 1 × 105 particles cm−3, respectively) were selected for the polydispersed aerosol test. For all four monodispersed aerosol sizes, particle concentrations measured with the NanoScan SMPS were within 13% of those measured with the reference SMPS. Particle concentrations measured with the PAMS were within 25% of those measured with the reference SMPS. Concentrations measured with the handheld condensation particle counter were within 30% of those measured with the reference SMPS. For the polydispersed aerosols, the particle sizes and concentrations measured with the NanoScan-OPS compared most favorably with those measured with the reference SMPS for three different concentration levels of low, medium, and high (concentration deviations ≤10% for all three concentration levels; deviations of particle size ≤4%). Although the particle-size comparability between the PAMS and the reference SMPS was quite reasonable with the deviations within 10%, the polydispersed particle concentrations measured with the PAMS were within 36% of those measured with the reference SMPS. The results of this evaluation will be useful for selecting a suitable portable device for our next workplace study phase of respiratory protection assessment. This study also provided the advantages and limitations of each individual portable instrument and therefore results from this study can be used by industrial hygienists and safety professionals, with appropriate caution, when selecting a suitable portable instrument for aerosol particle measurement in nanotechnology workplaces. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Annals of Work Exposures & Health is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=130894907 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1093/annweh/wxy036 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 10 StartPage: 711 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Aerosol analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Salt analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: Industrial hygiene Type: general – SubjectFull: Industrial safety Type: general – SubjectFull: Medical equipment Type: general – SubjectFull: Particles Type: general – SubjectFull: Breathing apparatus Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Performance Comparison of Field Portable Instruments to the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Using Monodispersed and Polydispersed Sodium Chloride Aerosols. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Vo, Evanly – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Horvatin, Matthew – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Zhuang, Ziqing IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 07 Text: Jul2018 Type: published Y: 2018 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 23987308 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 62 – Type: issue Value: 6 Titles: – TitleFull: Annals of Work Exposures & Health Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
