Comparison of four mobility particle sizers with different time resolution for stationary exposure measurements

By C. Asbach, H. Kaminski, H. Fissan, C. Monz, D. Dahmann, S. Mülhopt, H. Paur, Heinz-Jürgen Kiesling, Friedhelm Herrmann, M. Voetz and 1 more. 2009

143 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Exposure to airborne ultrafine and nanoparticles has raised increased interest over the recent years as they may cause adverse health effects. A common way to quantify exposure to airborne particles is to measure particle number size distributions through electrical mobility analysis. Four mobility particle sizers have been subject to a detailed intercomparison study, a TSI Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS), a Grimm Sequential Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS+C), and two TSI Scanning Mobility Particle Sizers (SMPSs), equipped with two different condensation particle counters (CPC). The instruments were challenged with either NaCl or diesel soot particles. The results indicate that the sizing of all tested instrument was similar with only the FMPS size distributions consistently shifted toward smaller particle sizes. The Grimm SMPS generally measured higher concentrations and broader distributions than the TSI instruments. The two Grimm DMAs agreed well with each other; however, the TSI SMPS results showed a reproducible dependence on the flow rates. While TSI and Grimm SMPS delivered consistent results for sodium chloride (NaCl) and diesel soot, the FMPS seemed to react differently to the changing particle source than the SMPSs, which may be caused by either the different morphology or particle size dependent effects. For NaCl particles, the FMPS delivered the narrowest distributions and concentrations comparable with TSI SMPSs, whereas for diesel soot, it delivered the broadest distributions and higher concentrations than TSI SMPSs.

Subfields: Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis, Water Science and Technology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/dc558a54363455a71496a54939c9ca42b612832a

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Water Science and Technology

1. H. Fissan
2. C. Asbach
3. T. Kuhlbusch

Citations in the corpus

• Nanoparticle exposure at nanotechnology workplaces: A review (2011, background): “Further uncertainty arises from the calibration of the devices which sometimes may differ by up to 30% [60].”