Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber

Ju Myon Park; James C. Rock; Lingjuan Wang; Yong Chil Seo; Amit Bhatnagar; Seongheon Kim

doi:10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.028

Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber

Ju Myon Park, James C. Rock, Lingjuan Wang, Yong Chil Seo, Amit Bhatnagar, Seongheon Kim

Division of Environmental Engineering

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

23 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The present study was carried out with the aim of evaluating the performance of six different aerosol samplers in terms of mass concentration, particle size distribution, and mass fraction for the international size-sampling conventions. The international size-sampling criteria were defined as inhalable, thoracic, and respirable mass fractions with 50% cutoff at an aerodynamic equivalent diameter of 100 μm, 10 μm, and 4 μm, respectively. Two Andersen, four total suspended particulate (TSP), two RespiCon, four PM₁₀, two DustTrak, and two SidePak samplers were selected and tested to quantitatively estimate human exposure in a carefully controlled particulate matter (PM) test chamber. The overall results indicate that (1) Andersen samplers underestimate total suspended PM and overestimate thoracic and respirable PM due to particle bounce and carryover between stages, (2) TSP samplers provide total suspended PM as reference samplers, (3) TSP samplers quantified by a coulter counter multisizer provide no information below an equivalent spherical diameter of 2 μm and therefore underestimate respirable PM, (4) RespiCon samplers are free from particle bounce as inhalable samplers but underestimate total suspended PM, (5) PM₁₀ samplers overestimate thoracic PM, and (6) DustTrak and SidePak samplers provide relative PM concentrations instead of absolute PM concentrations.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	280-289
Number of pages	10
Journal	Atmospheric Environment
Volume	43
Issue number	2
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.028
Publication status	Published - 2009 Jan

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors are thankful to the Exxon Mobil Corporation for financial support. Part of this work was also supported by the Brain Korea-21 (BK-21) research project. Sincere thanks are extended to Dr. Calvin B. Parnell and CAAQES for allowing us to use their chamber and instruments for the present study.

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Environmental Science(all)
Atmospheric Science

Access to Document

10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.028

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this

@article{88a170e55385498895366c521f87afb3,

title = "Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber",

abstract = "The present study was carried out with the aim of evaluating the performance of six different aerosol samplers in terms of mass concentration, particle size distribution, and mass fraction for the international size-sampling conventions. The international size-sampling criteria were defined as inhalable, thoracic, and respirable mass fractions with 50% cutoff at an aerodynamic equivalent diameter of 100 μm, 10 μm, and 4 μm, respectively. Two Andersen, four total suspended particulate (TSP), two RespiCon, four PM10, two DustTrak, and two SidePak samplers were selected and tested to quantitatively estimate human exposure in a carefully controlled particulate matter (PM) test chamber. The overall results indicate that (1) Andersen samplers underestimate total suspended PM and overestimate thoracic and respirable PM due to particle bounce and carryover between stages, (2) TSP samplers provide total suspended PM as reference samplers, (3) TSP samplers quantified by a coulter counter multisizer provide no information below an equivalent spherical diameter of 2 μm and therefore underestimate respirable PM, (4) RespiCon samplers are free from particle bounce as inhalable samplers but underestimate total suspended PM, (5) PM10 samplers overestimate thoracic PM, and (6) DustTrak and SidePak samplers provide relative PM concentrations instead of absolute PM concentrations.",

author = "Park, {Ju Myon} and Rock, {James C.} and Lingjuan Wang and Seo, {Yong Chil} and Amit Bhatnagar and Seongheon Kim",

note = "Funding Information: The authors are thankful to the Exxon Mobil Corporation for financial support. Part of this work was also supported by the Brain Korea-21 (BK-21) research project. Sincere thanks are extended to Dr. Calvin B. Parnell and CAAQES for allowing us to use their chamber and instruments for the present study. ",

year = "2009",

month = jan,

doi = "10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.028",

language = "English",

volume = "43",

pages = "280--289",

journal = "Atmospheric Environment",

issn = "1352-2310",

publisher = "Elsevier Limited",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber

AU - Park, Ju Myon

AU - Rock, James C.

AU - Wang, Lingjuan

AU - Seo, Yong Chil

AU - Bhatnagar, Amit

AU - Kim, Seongheon

N1 - Funding Information: The authors are thankful to the Exxon Mobil Corporation for financial support. Part of this work was also supported by the Brain Korea-21 (BK-21) research project. Sincere thanks are extended to Dr. Calvin B. Parnell and CAAQES for allowing us to use their chamber and instruments for the present study.

PY - 2009/1

Y1 - 2009/1

N2 - The present study was carried out with the aim of evaluating the performance of six different aerosol samplers in terms of mass concentration, particle size distribution, and mass fraction for the international size-sampling conventions. The international size-sampling criteria were defined as inhalable, thoracic, and respirable mass fractions with 50% cutoff at an aerodynamic equivalent diameter of 100 μm, 10 μm, and 4 μm, respectively. Two Andersen, four total suspended particulate (TSP), two RespiCon, four PM10, two DustTrak, and two SidePak samplers were selected and tested to quantitatively estimate human exposure in a carefully controlled particulate matter (PM) test chamber. The overall results indicate that (1) Andersen samplers underestimate total suspended PM and overestimate thoracic and respirable PM due to particle bounce and carryover between stages, (2) TSP samplers provide total suspended PM as reference samplers, (3) TSP samplers quantified by a coulter counter multisizer provide no information below an equivalent spherical diameter of 2 μm and therefore underestimate respirable PM, (4) RespiCon samplers are free from particle bounce as inhalable samplers but underestimate total suspended PM, (5) PM10 samplers overestimate thoracic PM, and (6) DustTrak and SidePak samplers provide relative PM concentrations instead of absolute PM concentrations.

AB - The present study was carried out with the aim of evaluating the performance of six different aerosol samplers in terms of mass concentration, particle size distribution, and mass fraction for the international size-sampling conventions. The international size-sampling criteria were defined as inhalable, thoracic, and respirable mass fractions with 50% cutoff at an aerodynamic equivalent diameter of 100 μm, 10 μm, and 4 μm, respectively. Two Andersen, four total suspended particulate (TSP), two RespiCon, four PM10, two DustTrak, and two SidePak samplers were selected and tested to quantitatively estimate human exposure in a carefully controlled particulate matter (PM) test chamber. The overall results indicate that (1) Andersen samplers underestimate total suspended PM and overestimate thoracic and respirable PM due to particle bounce and carryover between stages, (2) TSP samplers provide total suspended PM as reference samplers, (3) TSP samplers quantified by a coulter counter multisizer provide no information below an equivalent spherical diameter of 2 μm and therefore underestimate respirable PM, (4) RespiCon samplers are free from particle bounce as inhalable samplers but underestimate total suspended PM, (5) PM10 samplers overestimate thoracic PM, and (6) DustTrak and SidePak samplers provide relative PM concentrations instead of absolute PM concentrations.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=57949096309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=57949096309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.028

DO - 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.028

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:57949096309

VL - 43

SP - 280

EP - 289

JO - Atmospheric Environment

JF - Atmospheric Environment

SN - 1352-2310

IS - 2

ER -

Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber

Abstract

Bibliographical note

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

Access to Document

Other files and links

Cite this