Assessment on the Collection Efficiency of an Aerosol Sampler in Micro and Nanoparticles Environment

Abstract:

The collection efficiency (CE) of an aerosol sampler is usually assessed dependently by using a sampler with higher CE and higher sampling accuracy or comparing the grain size distribution, concentration and/or other characteristics of the collected dust to that of the original dust, instead of the sampler itself. To establish a simple method for the assessment on the collection efficiency (CE) of an aerosol sampler, a self-dependent method was derived to calculate the CE of an aerosol sampler, which was patented with the number of ZL200910233001.X by the State Intellectual Property Office of China. According to the patent method, two or more uniform aerosol samplers of the same model were connected in series the inlet of a sampler was connected directly with the outlet of another sampler. The CE (η) of the aerosol sampler can be calculated by a simple equation as: η=1-m₂/m₁, in which m₁ and m₂ is the weight of the aerosol particles collected by sampler 1# and sampler 2# in the connection sequence, respectively. A cascade impactor sampler was used to sample in a micrometer particle (d₅₀=2.5 μm) aerosol environment and a nanoparticle (d₅₀=42 nm) aerosol environment which were formed artificially in a glove box, as well as a workplace environment which manufactured nanometer powders. The sampling test results indicated that the cascade impactor sampler showed relative high CE (99.51%) for micrometer aerosol but a little bit low CE (95.2%) for nanoparticle aerosol. However, a low CE (93.93%) was calculated out by the method because of low concentration aerosol nanoparticles in the workplace environment, which result to big testing errors. It was found that the assessment result on collection efficiency of a sampler is highly affected by the subsequent analytical methods and detection accuracies after the sampling process. If the precision of the electronic balance was improved to a reasonable higher order of magnitude, the cascade impactor sampler can hopefully show much higher collection efficiency on nanoparticle aerosols.

• Periodical: Key Engineering Materials (Volumes 609-610)
• Pages: 483-488
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/KEM.609-610.483
• Online since: April 2014
• Authors: Yi Yang*, Ping Mao, Shu Yan Feng, Jin Hua Zhang
• Keywords: Aerosol Sampler, Collection Efficiency, Series Connection

References

[1] Calvert, J.G. Glossary of atmospheric chemistry terms (Recommendations 1990) [J]. Pure Appl. Chem., 62(11), (1990), 2167-2219 (on page 2181).

DOI: 10.1351/pac199062112167

[2] ISO. Workplace atmospheres — ultrafine, nanoparticle and nano-structured aerosols — inhalation exposure characterization and assessment [S]. ISO/TR 27628, 2007: 21.

DOI: 10.3403/30147850

[3] Goossens, Dirk. Wind tunnel calibration of the USGS dust deposition sampler: Sampling efficiency and grain size correction. Aeolian Research, 2010, 2: 159-170.

DOI: 10.1016/j.aeolia.2010.08.002

[4] Lee, S.J., Demokritou, P., Koutrakis, P. and Delgado-Saborit, J.M. Development and evaluation of a personal respirable particulate sampler (PRPS) [J]. Atmospheric Environment, 40, (2006), 212–224.

DOI: 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2005.08.041

[5] Hata, M., Linfa, B., Otani, Y. and Furuuchi, M. Performance evaluation of an Andersen cascade impactor with an additional stage for nanoparticle sampling. Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12, (2012), 1041–1048.

DOI: 10.4209/aaqr.2012.08.0204

[6] Tsai, C.J., Lin G.Y., Liu C.N., He C.E. and Chen C.W. Characteristic of nanoparticles generated from different nano-powders by using different dispersion methods. Journal of Nanoparticle Research, 14(4), (2012), 777-779.

DOI: 10.1007/s11051-012-0777-9

[7] Shintani, H., Taniai, E., Miki, A., Kurosu, S. and Hayashi, F. Comparison of the collecting efficiency of microbiological air samplers. Journal of Hospital Infection, 56, (2004), 42–48.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jhin.2003.08.015

[8] Li, K.J. Molecular comparison of the sampling efficiency of four types of airborne bacterial samplers. Science of the Total Environment, 409 (2011), 5493–5498.

DOI: 10.1016/j.scitotenv.2011.09.010

[9] Smith, Jerome P. and Bird, Aaron J. Relationship of sampling efficiency for manikin-mounted personal samplers to efficiency measurements made independent of manikin. Journal of Aerosol Science, 33, (2002), 1235-1259.

DOI: 10.1016/s0021-8502(02)00068-x

[10] May, K. R. The cascade impactor: An instrument for sampling course aerosols. Journal of Scientific Instruments, 22, (1945), 187.

DOI: 10.1088/0950-7671/22/10/303

[11] Ranz, W. E., and Wong, J. B. Jet impactors for determining the particle size distribution of aerosols. Archives of Industrial Hygiene and Occupational Medicine, 5, (1950), 464.

[12] Davies, C. N., and Aylward, M. Trajectories of heavy, solid particles in a two dimensional jet of ideal fluid impinging normally on a plate. Proceedings of the Physical Society (London), B64, (1951), 889.

DOI: 10.1088/0370-1301/64/10/305

[13] Hinds, W.C. Aerosol technology: Properties, behaviour, and measurement of airborne particles. NewYork, USA: Wiley-Interscience, ISBN 0-471-19410-7, (1999).

[14] Marple, V.A., and Liu, B.Y.H. Characteristics of laminar jet impactors. Environmental Science and Technology, 8, (1974), 648.

[15] Whyte, W., Green, G. and Albisu, A. Collection efficiency and design of microbial air samplers [J]. Journal of Aerosol Science, 38, (2007), 101-114.

DOI: 10.1016/j.jaerosci.2006.09.004