Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 20, 2026
07:01
A New Portable In Vitro Exposure Cassette for Aerosol Sampling
Published on: February 22, 2019
Comparability of portable nanoparticle exposure monitors
Christof Asbach1, Heinz Kaminski, Daniel von Barany
1Institute of Energy and Environmental Technology, 47229 Duisburg, Germany.
The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
|July 4, 2012
Summary
Portable nanoparticle monitoring instruments were compared. Condensation particle counters (CPCs) showed high accuracy (±5%), while diffusion charger instruments varied significantly (±30%) based on particle size range matching.
Area of Science:
- Environmental Science
- Occupational Health
- Aerosol Science
Background:
- Accurate monitoring of airborne nanoparticles is crucial for assessing exposure risks.
- Portable instruments offer convenient solutions for real-time exposure assessment.
- Intercomparison studies are essential to validate the performance of different monitoring technologies.
Purpose of the Study:
- To evaluate and compare the performance of different portable instruments for nanoparticle exposure monitoring.
- To assess the accuracy and comparability of instruments based on electrical diffusion charging and condensation particle counters (CPCs).
- To investigate the influence of particle size, concentration, and morphology on instrument measurements.
Main Methods:
- An intercomparison campaign involving five types of portable nanoparticle monitoring instruments.
- Testing with three different log-normal distributed test aerosols (modal diameters 30-180 nm) with varying concentrations and morphologies.
- Instruments included four based on electrical diffusion charging (measuring number concentration, lung deposited surface area (LDSA), and mean particle size) and one handheld CPC.
Main Results:
- CPCs demonstrated high comparability (±5%) across tested particle sizes, but with a limited upper concentration range.
- Diffusion charger-based instruments showed ±30% comparability for number concentration, LDSA, and mean particle size when particle sizes were within the instrument's specified range.
- Significant deviations occurred when particle sizes exceeded instrument detection limits, with one instance of a 6.9-fold overestimation of number concentration.
- No general dependence of measurement accuracy on particle morphology was observed.
Conclusions:
- CPCs offer reliable measurements for nanoparticle number concentration within their operational limits.
- The accuracy of diffusion charger-based instruments is highly dependent on matching the aerosol's particle size distribution to the instrument's detection range.
- Careful consideration of instrument specifications and aerosol characteristics is necessary for accurate nanoparticle exposure monitoring.
