An intercomparison exercise of good laboratory practices for nano-aerosol size measurements by mobility spectrometers
Source abstract
Abstract
An intercomparison campaign on nanoparticle size measurement was organized in the frame of the French nanoMetrology club. The aim of this study is to make an inventory of the metrological capabilities of all measurement techniques in France involved in the “nano” size range, including the SMPS (scanning mobility particle sizer) concerning aerosol metrology. For this study, four samples have been proposed, namely (1) a SiO2 colloidal suspension (FD304) consisting of a monomodal population, (2) two samples consisting of two nanoparticle populations of SiO2 having proportions to be determined, and (3) a TiO2 colloidal suspension. Ten SMPS associated with five participants around a common experimental setup were performed in link with a control SMPS to have simultaneous measurements with a same instrument in each laboratory in parallel with the SMPS used by each partner. This article presents SMPS results of this study associated with the description of the experimental setup and the sample preparation protocol with an identified schedule and comparison with SEM measurements. The present paper does not focus on the actual capability of the tested mobility spectrometers, but aims to highlight the good laboratory practices using their own but common resources in terms of aerosol generation and measurement setups.
Source: openaire · Quality: candidate unverified · Source record ↗
Research context
OpenAlex topics: Coagulation and Flocculation Studies · Aerosol Filtration and Electrostatic Precipitation · Iron oxide chemistry and applications
SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.
References (43)
Show source-provided references
1. Asbach C, Kaminski H, Fissan H, Monz C, Dahmann D, Mülhopt S, Paur HR, Heinz JK, Herrmann F, Voetz M, Kuhlbusch T (2009) Comparison of four mobility particle sizers with different time resolution for stationary exposure measurements. J Nanopart Res 11:1593–160910.1007/s11051-009-9679-x ↗
2. Babick F, Mielke J, Wohlleben W, Weigel S, Hodoroaba V-D (2016a) How reliably can a material be classified as a nanomaterial? Available particle-sizing techniques at work. J Nanopart Res 18, 15810.1007/s11051-016-3461-7 ↗
3. Babick F, Mielke J, Hodoroaba V-D, Weigel S, Wohlleben W (2016b) Critical review manuscript with real world performance data for counting, ensemble and separating methods including in-build mathematical conversion to number distributions submitted for publication - NanoDefine Technical Report D3.3, in NanoDefine
4. Bau S, Witschger O, Gensdarmes F, Thomas D (2013) Determining the count median diameter of nanoaerosols by simultaneously measuring their number and lung deposited surface area concentrations. J Nanopart Res 15:210410.1007/s11051-013-2104-5 ↗
5. Bau S, Toussaint A, Payet R, Witschger O (2017) Performance study of various condensation particle counters (CPCs): development of a methodology based on steady-state airborne DEHS particles and application to a series of handheld and stationary CPCs. J Phys Conf Ser, IOP Publishing 838:01200210.1088/1742-6596/838/1/012002 ↗
6. Bau S, Payet R, Tritscher T, Witschger O (2019) Intercomparison in the laboratory of various condensation particle counters challenged by nanoaerosols in the range 6 – 460 nm. J Phys Conf Ser 1323:012004.10.1088/1742-6596/1323/1/012004 ↗
7. Club nanoMétrologie (2019). Accessed date October 6, 2011.
8. Dahmann D, Riediger G, Schlatter J, Wiedensohler A, Carli S, Graff A, Grosser M, Hojgr M, Horn H-G, Jing L, Matter U, Monz C, Mosimann T, Stein H, Wehner B, Wieser U (2001) Intercomparison of mobility particle sizers (MPS). Gefahrstoffe - Reinhalt Luft 61(10):423–428
9. Ding YB, Stahlmecke B, Kaminski H, Jiang Y, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Riediker M (2016) Deagglomeration testing of airborne nanoparticle agglomerates: stability analysis under varied aerodynamic shear and relative humidity conditions. Aerosol Sci Technol 50(11):1253–126310.1080/02786826.2016.1216072 ↗
10. Fissan H, Hummes D, Stratmann F, Büscher P, Neumann S, Pui DYH, Chen D (1996) Experimental comparison of four differential mobility analyzers for nanometer aerosol measurements. Aerosol Sci Technol 24:1–1310.1080/02786829608965347 ↗
11. Fonseca AS, Viana M, Pérez N, Alastuey A, Querol X, Kaminski H, Todea AM, Monz C, Asbach C (2016) Intercomparison of a portable and two stationary mobility particle sizers for nanoscale aerosol measurements. Aerosol Sci Technol 50(7):653–668.10.1080/02786826.2016.1174329 ↗
12. Franklin L, Bika A, Watts W, Kittelson D (2010) Comparison of water and butanol based CPCs for examining diesel combustion aerosols. Aerosol Sci Technol 44(8):629–638.10.1080/02786826.2010.482112 ↗
13. Forster, P., Ramaswamy, V., Artaxo, P., Berntsen, T., Betts, R., Fahey, D. W., Haywood,J., Lean, J., Lowe, D. C., Myhre, G., Nganga, J., Prinn, R., Raga, G., Schulz, M., & Van Dorland, R. (2007). Changes in Atmospheric constituents and in radiativeforcing, in: Climate Change. In The Physical Science Basis Contribution of WorkingGroup I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergouvernmental Panel on ClimateChange). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
14. Fuchs NA (1963) On the stationary charge distribution on aerosol particles in abipolar ionic atmosphere. Pure Appl Geophys 56(1):185–19310.1007/BF01993343 ↗
15. Gaie-Levrel F, Bourrous S, Macé T (2018) Development of a portable reference aerosol generator (PRAG) for calibration of particle mass concentration measurements. Particuology 37:134-142.10.1016/j.partic.2017.06.005 ↗
16. Gómez-Moreno FJ, Alonso E, Artíñano B, Juncal-Bello V, Iglesias-Samitier S, Piñeiro Iglesias M, López Mahía P, Pérez N, Pey J, Ripoll A, Alastuey A, de la Morena BA, Rodríguez MIG, Sorribas M, Titos G, Lyamani H, Alados-Arboledas L, Latorre E, Tritscher T, Bischof OF (2015) Intercomparisons of mobility size spectrometers and condensation particle counters in the frame of the Spanish atmospheric observational aerosol network. Aerosol Sci Technol 49:777–78510.1080/02786826.2015.1074656 ↗
17. Helsper C, Horn HG, Schneider F, Wehner B, Wiedensohler A (2008) Intercomparison of five mobility size spectrometers for measuring atmospheric submicrometer aerosol particles. Gefahrstoffe - Reinhalt Luft 68:475–481
18. ICRP (1994) Publication 66: Human respiratory tract model for radiological protection. Pergamon, Oxford
19. ISO 5725-2 (1994) Accuracy (trueness and precision) of measurement methods and results - Part 2: Basic method for the determination of repeatability and reproducibility of a standard measurement method, ISO/TC 69/SC 6 "Measurement methods and results"
20. Jeong C-H, Evans GJ (2009) Inter-comparison of a fast mobility particle sizer and a scanning mobility particle sizer incorporating an ultrafine water-based condensation particle counter. Aerosol Sci Technol 43:364–37310.1080/02786820802662939 ↗
21. Joshi M, Sapra BK, Khan A, Tripathi SN, Shamjad PM, Gupta T, Mayya YS (2012) Harmonisation of nanoparticle concentration measurements using GRIMM and TSI scanning mobility particle sizers. J Nanopart Res 14:1268–128110.1007/s11051-012-1268-8 ↗
22. Kallinger P, Steiner G, Szymanski WW (2012) Characterization of four different bipolar charging devices for nanoparticle charge conditioning. J Nanopart Res 14:944–95110.1007/s11051-012-0944-z ↗
23. Kaminski H, Kuhlbusch TAJ, Rath S, Götz U, Sprenger M, Wels D, Polloczek J, Bachmann V, Dziurowitz N, Kiesling HJ, Schwiegelsohn A, Monz C, Dahmann D, Asbach C (2013) Comparability of mobility particle sizers and diffusion chargers. J Aerosol Sci 57:156–17810.1016/j.jaerosci.2012.10.008 ↗
24. Khlystov A, Kos GPA, ten Brink HM, Mirme A, Tuch T, Roth C, Kreyling WG (2001) Comparability of three spectrometers for monitoring urban aerosol. Atmos Environ 35:2045–205110.1016/S1352-2310(00)00478-7 ↗
25. Kulkarni P, Baron PA, Willeke K (Eds.) (2011) Aerosol measurement: principles, techniques, and applications, John Wiley & Sons, ISBN 978-0-470-38741-210.1002/9781118001684 ↗
26. Lall AA, Friedlander SK (2006) On-line measurement of ultrafine aggregate surface area and volume distributions by electrical mobility analysis: I. Theoretical analysis. J Aerosol Sci 37:260–27110.1016/j.jaerosci.2005.05.021 ↗
27. Lawrence MG, Butler TM, Steinkamp J, Gurjar BR, Lelieveld J (2007) Regional pollution potentials of megacities and other major population centers. Atmos Chem Phys 7:3969–3987.10.5194/acp-7-3969-2007 ↗
28. Lee ES, Polidori A, Koch M, Fine PM, Mehadi A, Hammond D, Wright JN, Miguel AH, Ayala A, Zhu Y (2013) Water-based condensation particle counters comparison near a major freeway with significant heavy-duty diesel traffic. Atmos Environ 68:151–16110.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.12.001 ↗
29. Leskinen J, Joutsensaari J, Lyyränen J, Koivisto J, Ruusunen J, Järvelä M, Jokiniemi J (2012) Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications. J Nanopart Res 14(2):71810.1007/s11051-012-0718-7 ↗
30. Motzkus C, Macé T, Gaie-Levrel F, Ducourtieux S, Delvallée A, Dirscherl K et al. (2013) Size characterization of airborne SiO2 nanoparticles with online and off-line measurement techniques: an interlaboratory comparison study, Journal of Nanoparticle Research 15(10):191910.1007/s11051-013-1919-4 ↗
31. Nicosia A, Manodori L, Trentini A, Ricciardelli I, Bacco D, Poluzzi V, Di Matteo L, Belosi F (2018) Field study of a soft X-ray aerosol neutralizer combined with electrostatic classifiers for nanoparticle size distribution measurements. Particuology 37:99–10610.1016/j.partic.2017.08.001 ↗
32. Nicosia A, Belosi F, Vazquez B (2014) Application of the soft X-ray TSI advanced aerosol neutralizer to aerosol measurements made by a Grimm SMPS. Atmosph Clim Sci 4(4):636–641
33. R’Mili B, Le Bihan O, Dutouquet C, Aguerre-Chariol O, Frejafon E (2013) Particle sampling by TEM grid filtration. Aerosol Sci Technol 47(7):767–77510.1080/02786826.2013.789478 ↗
34. Rodrigue J, Dhaniyala S, Ranjan M, Hopke PK (2007) Performance comparison of scanning electrical mobility spectrometers. Aerosol Sci Technol 41:360–36810.1080/02786820701203199 ↗
35. Stolzenburg MR, McMurry PH (2008) Equations governing single and tan-dem DMA configurations and a new lognormal approximation to the transfer function. Aerosol Sci Technol 42(6):421–43210.1080/02786820802157823 ↗
36. Tigges L, Wiedensohler A, Weinhold K, Gandhi J, Schmid H-J (2015) Bipolar charge distribution of a soft X-ray diffusion charger. J Aerosol Sci 90:77–8610.1016/j.jaerosci.2015.07.002 ↗
37. Vedal S, Dutton SJ (2006) Wildfire air pollution and daily mortality in a large urban area. Environ Res 102:29–3510.1016/j.envres.2006.03.008 ↗
38. Watson JG, Chow JC, Sodeman DA, Lowenthal DH, Chang MCO, Park K, Wang X (2011) Comparison of four scanning mobility particle sizers at the Fresno Supersite. Particuology 9:204–20910.1016/j.partic.2011.03.002 ↗
39. Wiedensohler A, Wiesner A, Weinhold K, Birmili W, Hermann M, Merkel M, Müller T, Pfeifer S, Schmidt A, Tuch T, Velarde F, Quincey P, Seeger S, Nowak A (2017) Mobility particle size spectrometers: calibration procedures and measurement uncertainties. Aerosol Sci Technol 52:146–16410.1080/02786826.2017.1387229 ↗
40. Wiedensohler A, Birmili W, Nowak A et al (2012) Mobility particle size spectrometers: harmonization of technical standards and data structure to facilitate high quality long-term observations of atmospheric particle number size distributions. Atmos Meas Technol 5:657–68510.5194/amt-5-657-2012 ↗
41. Wiedensohler A, Aalto P, Covert D, Heintzenberg J, McMurry P (1993) Intercomparison of three methods to determine size distributions of ultrafine aerosols with low number concentrations. J Aerosol Sci 24:551–55410.1016/0021-8502(93)90038-B ↗
42. Wiedensohler A, Lütkemeier E, Feldpausch M, Helsper C (1986) Investigation of the bipolar charge distribution at various gas conditions. J Aerosol Sci 17:413-41610.1016/0021-8502(86)90118-7 ↗
43. Wiedensohler A (1988) Technical note: an approximation of the bipolar charge distribution for particles in the submicron range. J Aerosol Sci 19(3):387–38910.1016/0021-8502(88)90278-9 ↗