Cargando…

Comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to make a comparison of a new small sized nanoparticle monitoring instrument, Nanoscan  SMPS, with more traditional large size instruments, known to be precise and accurate [Scanning Mobility Particle Sampler (SMPS) and Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS)], and w...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autor principal: Jørgensen, Rikke Bramming
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31798666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12995-019-0247-8
_version_ 1783474111744311296
author Jørgensen, Rikke Bramming
author_facet Jørgensen, Rikke Bramming
author_sort Jørgensen, Rikke Bramming
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to make a comparison of a new small sized nanoparticle monitoring instrument, Nanoscan  SMPS, with more traditional large size instruments, known to be precise and accurate [Scanning Mobility Particle Sampler (SMPS) and Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS)], and with an older small size instrument with bulk measurements of 10–1000 nm particles (CPC3007). The comparisons are made during simulated exposure scenarios relevant to occupational hygiene studies. METHODS: Four scenarios were investigated: metal inert gas (MIG) welding, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) welding, cooking, and candle-burning. Ratios between results are compaed and Pearsson correlations analysis was performed. RESULTS: The highest correlation between the results is found between Nanoscan and SMPS, with Pearsson correlation coefficients above 0.9 for all scenarios. However, Nanoscan tended to overestimate the results from the SMPS; the ratio between the UFP concentrations vary between 1.44 and 2.01, and ratios of total concentrations between 1.18 and 2.33. CPC 3007 did not show comparable results with the remaining instruments. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, the choice of measurement equipment may be crucial when evaluating measurement results against a reference value or a limit value for nanoparticle exposure. This stresses the need for method development, standardisation, and harmonisation of particle sampling protocols before reference values are introduced. Until this is established, the SMPS instruments are the most reliable for quantification of the concentrations of UFP, but in a more practical occupational hygiene context, the Nanoscan SMPS should be further tested.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6882232
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-68822322019-12-03 Comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications Jørgensen, Rikke Bramming J Occup Med Toxicol Research BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to make a comparison of a new small sized nanoparticle monitoring instrument, Nanoscan  SMPS, with more traditional large size instruments, known to be precise and accurate [Scanning Mobility Particle Sampler (SMPS) and Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS)], and with an older small size instrument with bulk measurements of 10–1000 nm particles (CPC3007). The comparisons are made during simulated exposure scenarios relevant to occupational hygiene studies. METHODS: Four scenarios were investigated: metal inert gas (MIG) welding, polyvinyl chloride (PVC) welding, cooking, and candle-burning. Ratios between results are compaed and Pearsson correlations analysis was performed. RESULTS: The highest correlation between the results is found between Nanoscan and SMPS, with Pearsson correlation coefficients above 0.9 for all scenarios. However, Nanoscan tended to overestimate the results from the SMPS; the ratio between the UFP concentrations vary between 1.44 and 2.01, and ratios of total concentrations between 1.18 and 2.33. CPC 3007 did not show comparable results with the remaining instruments. CONCLUSION: Based on the results of this study, the choice of measurement equipment may be crucial when evaluating measurement results against a reference value or a limit value for nanoparticle exposure. This stresses the need for method development, standardisation, and harmonisation of particle sampling protocols before reference values are introduced. Until this is established, the SMPS instruments are the most reliable for quantification of the concentrations of UFP, but in a more practical occupational hygiene context, the Nanoscan SMPS should be further tested. BioMed Central 2019-11-27 /pmc/articles/PMC6882232/ /pubmed/31798666 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12995-019-0247-8 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Jørgensen, Rikke Bramming
Comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications
title Comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications
title_full Comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications
title_fullStr Comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications
title_full_unstemmed Comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications
title_short Comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications
title_sort comparison of four nanoparticle monitoring instruments relevant for occupational hygiene applications
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6882232/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31798666
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12995-019-0247-8
work_keys_str_mv AT jørgensenrikkebramming comparisonoffournanoparticlemonitoringinstrumentsrelevantforoccupationalhygieneapplications