Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications

• Published in: Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology 2012-02, Vol.14 (2), p.1-16, Article 718
• Main Authors: Leskinen, J., Joutsensaari, J., Lyyränen, J., Koivisto, J., Ruusunen, J., Järvelä, M., Tuomi, T., Hämeri, K., Auvinen, A., Jokiniemi, J.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Aerosols; Agglomerates; Ammonium; Ammonium sulfate; Characterization and Evaluation of Materials; Chemistry and Materials Science; Inhalation; Inorganic Chemistry; Lasers; Materials Science; Nanocomposites; Nanomaterials; Nanoparticles; Nanostructure; Nanotechnology; Occupational health; Optical Devices; Optics; Particle counters; Photonics; Physical Chemistry; Research Paper; Sulfates; Titanium dioxide
• ISSN: 1388-0764; 1572-896X
• DOI: 10.1007/s11051-012-0718-7

Nanoparticles are used in many applications because of their novel properties compared to bulk material. A growing number of employees are working with nanomaterials and their exposure to nanoparticles trough inhalation must be evaluated and monitored continuously. However, there is an ongoing debate in the scientific literature about what are the relevant parameters to measure to evaluate exposure to level. In this study, three types of nanoparticles (ammonium sulphate, synthesised TiO 2 agglomerates and aerosolised TiO 2 powder, modes in a range of 30–140 nm mobility size) were measured with commonly used aerosol measurement instruments: scanning and fast mobility particle sizers (SMPS, FMPS), electrical low pressure impactor (ELPI), condensation particle counter (CPC) together with nanoparticle surface area monitor (NSAM) to achieve information about the interrelations of the outputs of the instruments. In addition, the ease of use of these instruments was evaluated. Differences between the results of different instruments can mainly be attributed to the nature of test particles. For spherical ammonium sulphate nanoparticles, the data from the instruments were in good agreement while larger differences were observed for particles with more complex morphology, the TiO 2 agglomerates and powder. For instance, the FMPS showed a smaller particle size, a higher number concentration and a narrower size distribution compared with the SMPS for TiO 2 particles. Thus, the type of the nanoparticle was observed to influence the data obtained from these different instruments. Therefore, care and expertise are essential when interpreting results from aerosol measurement instruments to estimate nanoparticle concentrations and properties.