Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber |
| |
| Authors: | Ju-Myon Park James C Rock Lingjuan Wang Yong-Chil Seo Amit Bhatnagar Seongheon Kim |
| |
| Institution: | 1. Department of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3133, USA;2. Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625, USA;3. Department of Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University Wonju, Gangwon-Do 220-710, South Korea;1. Department of Intracellular Signaling and Transport, Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of Sciences, Tikhoretsky pr. 4, St. Petersburg 94064, Russia;2. Department of Medical Physics and Bioengineering, Institute of Physics, Nanotechnology and Telecommunications, St. Petersburg State Polytechnical University, Polytechnicheskaya st. 29, St. Petersburg 195251, Russia;1. Facultad de Informática, Universidad Politécnica de Madrid, 28660 Boadilla del Monte, Madrid, Spain;2. University of California, Santa Barbara, CA 93106, USA;3. Eastern Connecticut State University, CT 06226, USA;4. State University of New York at Geneseo, NY 14454, USA;1. Health Effects Laboratory Division, NIOSH/HELD/PPRB, 1095 Willowdale Rd, MS-2015, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA;2. Division of Surveillance, Hazard Evaluations, and Field Studies, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA;3. Respiratory Health Division, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA |
| |
| Abstract: | The present study was carried out with the aim of evaluating the performance of six different aerosol samplers in terms of mass concentration, particle size distribution, and mass fraction for the international size-sampling conventions. The international size-sampling criteria were defined as inhalable, thoracic, and respirable mass fractions with 50% cutoff at an aerodynamic equivalent diameter of 100 μm, 10 μm, and 4 μm, respectively. Two Andersen, four total suspended particulate (TSP), two RespiCon, four PM10, two DustTrak, and two SidePak samplers were selected and tested to quantitatively estimate human exposure in a carefully controlled particulate matter (PM) test chamber. The overall results indicate that (1) Andersen samplers underestimate total suspended PM and overestimate thoracic and respirable PM due to particle bounce and carryover between stages, (2) TSP samplers provide total suspended PM as reference samplers, (3) TSP samplers quantified by a coulter counter multisizer provide no information below an equivalent spherical diameter of 2 μm and therefore underestimate respirable PM, (4) RespiCon samplers are free from particle bounce as inhalable samplers but underestimate total suspended PM, (5) PM10 samplers overestimate thoracic PM, and (6) DustTrak and SidePak samplers provide relative PM concentrations instead of absolute PM concentrations. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
