Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications

J. Leskinen (Corresponding Author), J. Joutsensaari, Jussi Lyyränen, J. Koivisto, J. Ruusunen, M. Järvelä, T. Tuomi, K. Hämeri, Ari Auvinen, Jorma Jokiniemi

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

45 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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 TiO2 agglomerates and aerosolised TiO2 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 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.
Original languageEnglish
Article number718
Number of pages16
JournalJournal of Nanoparticle Research
Volume14
Issue number2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2012
MoE publication typeA1 Journal article-refereed

Fingerprint

Occupational Health
health
Nanoparticles
Health
TiO2
nanoparticles
ammonium sulfates
Ammonium
Ammonium Sulfate
Aerosol
Aerosols
Powder
Powders
aerosols
impactors
Nanomaterials
Radiation counters
radiation counters
respiration
Surface area

Keywords

  • Comparison
  • EHS
  • environmental and health effects
  • measurement instruments
  • nanoparticles
  • occupational health

Cite this

Leskinen, J., Joutsensaari, J., Lyyränen, J., Koivisto, J., Ruusunen, J., Järvelä, M., ... Jokiniemi, J. (2012). Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(2), [718]. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0718-7
Leskinen, J. ; Joutsensaari, J. ; Lyyränen, Jussi ; Koivisto, J. ; Ruusunen, J. ; Järvelä, M. ; Tuomi, T. ; Hämeri, K. ; Auvinen, Ari ; Jokiniemi, Jorma. / Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications. In: Journal of Nanoparticle Research. 2012 ; Vol. 14, No. 2.
@article{6edabfbd31f84298b9bca7a2483011a9,
title = "Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications",
abstract = "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 TiO2 agglomerates and aerosolised TiO2 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 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.",
keywords = "Comparison, EHS, environmental and health effects, measurement instruments, nanoparticles, occupational health",
author = "J. Leskinen and J. Joutsensaari and Jussi Lyyr{\"a}nen and J. Koivisto and J. Ruusunen and M. J{\"a}rvel{\"a} and T. Tuomi and K. H{\"a}meri and Ari Auvinen and Jorma Jokiniemi",
year = "2012",
doi = "10.1007/s11051-012-0718-7",
language = "English",
volume = "14",
journal = "Journal of Nanoparticle Research",
issn = "1388-0764",
publisher = "Springer",
number = "2",

}

Leskinen, J, Joutsensaari, J, Lyyränen, J, Koivisto, J, Ruusunen, J, Järvelä, M, Tuomi, T, Hämeri, K, Auvinen, A & Jokiniemi, J 2012, 'Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications', Journal of Nanoparticle Research, vol. 14, no. 2, 718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-0718-7

Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications. / Leskinen, J. (Corresponding Author); Joutsensaari, J.; Lyyränen, Jussi; Koivisto, J.; Ruusunen, J.; Järvelä, M.; Tuomi, T.; Hämeri, K.; Auvinen, Ari; Jokiniemi, Jorma.

In: Journal of Nanoparticle Research, Vol. 14, No. 2, 718, 2012.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleScientificpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications

AU - Leskinen, J.

AU - Joutsensaari, J.

AU - Lyyränen, Jussi

AU - Koivisto, J.

AU - Ruusunen, J.

AU - Järvelä, M.

AU - Tuomi, T.

AU - Hämeri, K.

AU - Auvinen, Ari

AU - Jokiniemi, Jorma

PY - 2012

Y1 - 2012

N2 - 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 TiO2 agglomerates and aerosolised TiO2 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 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.

AB - 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 TiO2 agglomerates and aerosolised TiO2 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 TiO2 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 TiO2 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.

KW - Comparison

KW - EHS

KW - environmental and health effects

KW - measurement instruments

KW - nanoparticles

KW - occupational health

U2 - 10.1007/s11051-012-0718-7

DO - 10.1007/s11051-012-0718-7

M3 - Article

VL - 14

JO - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

JF - Journal of Nanoparticle Research

SN - 1388-0764

IS - 2

M1 - 718

ER -