Institute of Atmospheric Sciences and Climate (ISAC)-CNR, Bologna, Italy.
J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2013 Aug;63(8):918-25. doi: 10.1080/10962247.2013.800169.
A commercial differential mobility particle sizer (DMPS), long and medium column DMA (Grimm Aerosol Technik L-DMA model 5.400; M-DMA model 5500), condensation particle counter (CPC, Grimm Aerosol Technik 5.403), and a fast mobility particle sizer (FMPS-TSI, model 3091), were deployed to determine the size distributions of ultrafine particles. Comparisons were performed using atmospheric aerosol, as well as laboratory aerosol generated by nebulizing Milli-Q water (Millipore Corporation) and a water suspension of Fe2O3 in a Collison type atomizer. Results show that the DMPS generally measured higher particle number concentrations than the FMPS, above all for atmospheric aerosol compared to laboratory generated aerosol. With regard to size distribution, in both the atmospheric and laboratory-generated aerosols, the FMPS always showed a small peak around 10 nm, which was not shown by the M-DMPS. The agreement of the particle number concentration between the DMPS and FMPS was better in the 25-116 nm range for atmospheric aerosol, and in the 10-65 nm range for laboratory-generated aerosols. Since these instruments are scheduled to be run for air quality measurements and not only aerosol research purposes, there is an urgent need to establish working protocols in compliance with requirements with ISO 15900 requirements.
Epidemiological studies have shown that high ultrafine particulate concentrations are associated with an increase in mortality. Measuring exposure against mass alone is not sufficient, but it is also necessary to consider exposure against number concentration. Therefore, continuous measurements of aerosol size and number concentrations are important. This paper provides a comparison between two different nanoparticle size spectrometers widely used in air quality measurements. We found significantly different total number particle concentrations and size distributions in both laboratory-generated and atmospheric aerosols. Results show that the DMPS generally measured higher particle number concentrations than the FMPS. Since these instruments are scheduled to be run for air quality measurements and not only aerosol research purposes, there is an urgent need to establish working protocols in compliance with ISO 15900 requirements.
商业差分迁移率颗粒粒径仪（DMPS）、长和中径 DMA（Grimm 气溶胶技术 L-DMA 模型 5.400；M-DMA 模型 5500）、凝结核粒子计数器（CPC，Grimm 气溶胶技术 5.403）和快速迁移率粒子粒径仪（FMPS-TSI，模型 3091），用于确定超细颗粒的粒径分布。使用大气气溶胶以及通过雾化 Milli-Q 水（Millipore Corporation）和在 Collison 型雾化器中 Fe2O3 的水悬浮液产生的实验室气溶胶进行了比较。结果表明，DMPS 通常比 FMPS 测量到更高的颗粒数浓度，尤其是与实验室生成的气溶胶相比，大气气溶胶更是如此。关于粒径分布，在大气和实验室生成的气溶胶中，FMPS 始终在 10nm 左右显示出一个小峰值，而 M-DMPS 则没有显示。在大气气溶胶中，DMPS 和 FMPS 之间的颗粒数浓度一致性在 25-116nm 范围内更好，在实验室生成的气溶胶中在 10-65nm 范围内更好。由于这些仪器计划用于空气质量测量，而不仅仅是气溶胶研究目的，因此迫切需要根据 ISO 15900 要求制定符合要求的工作协议。
流行病学研究表明，高浓度的超细颗粒物与死亡率的增加有关。仅靠质量来衡量暴露是不够的，还需要考虑到数浓度的暴露。因此，气溶胶粒径和数浓度的连续测量很重要。本文比较了两种广泛用于空气质量测量的不同纳米颗粒粒径光谱仪。我们发现，在实验室生成和大气气溶胶中，总颗粒数浓度和粒径分布有显著差异。结果表明，DMPS 通常比 FMPS 测量到更高的颗粒数浓度。由于这些仪器计划用于空气质量测量，而不仅仅是气溶胶研究目的，因此迫切需要根据 ISO 15900 要求制定符合要求的工作协议。
