lnu.sePublications
Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Performance evaluation of six different aerosol samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3133, USA / Department of Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University Wonju, Gangwon-Do 220-710, South Korea.
Department of Nuclear Engineering, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-3133, USA.
Department of Biological & Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695-7625, USA.
Department of Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University Wonju, Gangwon-Do 220-710, South Korea.
Show others and affiliations
2009 (English)In: Atmospheric Environment, ISSN 1352-2310, Vol. 43, no 2, 280-289 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

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.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2009. Vol. 43, no 2, 280-289 p.
National Category
Environmental Sciences
Research subject
Natural Science, Environmental Science
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:lnu:diva-21086DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.09.028OAI: oai:DiVA.org:lnu-21086DiVA: diva2:543676
Available from: 2012-08-09 Created: 2012-08-09 Last updated: 2014-05-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Bhatnagar, Amit
In the same journal
Atmospheric Environment
Environmental Sciences

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

Altmetric score

Total: 35 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf