English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Five different portable instrument types to monitor exposure to nanoparticles were subject to an intensive intercomparison measurement campaign. Four of them were based on electrical diffusion charging to determine the number concentration or lung deposited surface area (LDSA) concentration of airborne particles. Three out of these four also determined the mean particle size. The fifth instrument type was a handheld condensation particle counter (CPC). The instruments were challenged with three different log-normally distributed test aerosols with modal diameters between 30 and 180 nm, varying in particle concentration and morphology. The CPCs showed the highest comparability with deviations on the order of only ±5%, independent of the particle sizes, but with a strictly limited upper number concentration. The diffusion charger-based instruments showed comparability on the order of ±30% for number concentration, LDSA concentration, and mean particle size, when the specified particle size range of the instruments matched the size range of the aerosol particles, whereas significant deviations were found when a large amount of particles exceeded the upper or lower detection limit. In one case the reported number concentration was even increased by a factor of 6.9 when the modal diameter of the test aerosol exceeded the specified upper limit of the instrument. A general dependence of the measurement accuracy of all devices on particle morphology was not detected.

annals of occupational hygiene

Comparability of Portable Nanoparticle Exposure Monitors&lt;xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c1"&gt;&lt;sup&gt;*&lt;/sup&gt;&lt;/xref&gt;&lt;xref ref-type="corresp" rid="c2" /&gt;