|Document ID (ISN)||111652|
|ISSN - Serial title
||1545-9624 - Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
|Convention or series no.
||Schmoll L.H., Peters T.M., O'Shaughnessy P.T.
||Use of a condensation particle counter and an optical particle counter to assess the number concentration of engineered nanoparticles
||Sep. 2010, Vol.7, p.535-545. Illus. 39 ref.
||There is a need to evaluate nanoparticle (< 100 nm) exposures in occupational settings. However, portable instruments do not size segregate particles in that size range. A proxy method for determining nanoparticle count concentrations involves subtracting counts made with a condensation particle counter (CPC) from those of an optical particle counter (OPC), resulting in an estimation of "very fine" particles < 300 nm, where 300 nm is the OPC lower detection limit. However, to determine size distributions from which particles < 100 nm may be estimated, the resulting count of particles < 300 nm can be used as an additional channel of count data in addition to those obtained from the OPC. To test these methods, the very fine number concentrations determined using a CPC and OPC were compared with those from Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS) measurements and were used to verify the accuracy of a very fine particle number concentration determined by an OPC and CPC. Various engineered nanoparticles were used to create test aerosols, including titanium dioxide (TiO2), silicon dioxide (SiO2), and iron oxide (Fe2O3). These materials were chosen because of their different refractive indices and therefore may be measured differently by the OPC. Findings are discussed.
||nanoparticles; exposure evaluation; nanotechnology; new technologies
||number concentration determination; condensation nucleus counting; optical particle counters; comparative study; reliability; description of technique
||D - Periodical articles
||Toxic and dangerous substances
|Broad subject area(s)
||Nanotechnology and nanoparticles