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

This study compared the performance of the following field portable aerosol instrument sets to performance of the reference Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS): the handheld CPC-3007, the portable aerosol mobility spectrometer (PAMS), the NanoScan scanning mobility particle sizer (NanoScan SMPS) combined with an optical particle sizer (OPS). Tests were conducted with monodispersed and polydispersed aerosols. Monodispersed aerosols were controlled at the approximate concentration of 1 × 105 particles cm-3 and four monodispersed particle sizes of 30, 60, 100, and 300 nm were selected and classified for the monodispersed aerosol test, while three different steady-state concentration levels (low, medium, and high: ~8 × 103, 5 × 104, and 1 × 105 particles cm-3, respectively) were selected for the polydispersed aerosol test. For all four monodispersed aerosol sizes, particle concentrations measured with the NanoScan SMPS were within 13% of those measured with the reference SMPS. Particle concentrations measured with the PAMS were within 25% of those measured with the reference SMPS. Concentrations measured with the handheld condensation particle counter were within 30% of those measured with the reference SMPS. For the polydispersed aerosols, the particle sizes and concentrations measured with the NanoScan-OPS compared most favorably with those measured with the reference SMPS for three different concentration levels of low, medium, and high (concentration deviations ≤10% for all three concentration levels; deviations of particle size ≤4%). Although the particle-size comparability between the PAMS and the reference SMPS was quite reasonable with the deviations within 10%, the polydispersed particle concentrations measured with the PAMS were within 36% of those measured with the reference SMPS. The results of this evaluation will be useful for selecting a suitable portable device for our next workplace study phase of respiratory protection assessment. This study also provided the advantages and limitations of each individual portable instrument and therefore results from this study can be used by industrial hygienists and safety professionals, with appropriate caution, when selecting a suitable portable instrument for aerosol particle measurement in nanotechnology workplaces.

annals of work exposures and health

Performance Comparison of Field Portable Instruments to the Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer Using Monodispersed and Polydispersed Sodium Chloride Aerosols