the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 License.
Intercomparison of four different cascade impactors for fine and ultrafine particle sampling in two European locations
Abstract. Due to the need to better characterise the ultrafine particles fraction and related personal exposure, several impactors have been developed to enable the collection of ultrafine particles (<100 nm). However, to the authors’ kno wledge there have been no field campaigns to-date intercomparing impactor collection of ultrafine particles. The purpose of this study was two-fold: 1) to assess the performance of a number of conventional and nano-range cascade impactors with regard to the particle mass size distribution under different environmental conditions and aerosol loads and types, and 2) to characterise aerosol size distributions including ultrafine particles using impactors in 2 European locations. The impactors used were: (i) Berner low-pressure impactor (BLPI; 26 nm - 13.5 μm), (ii) nano-Berner low-pressure impactor (nano-BLPI; 11 nm - 1.95 μm) and (iii) Nano-microorifice uniform deposit impactor (nano-Moudi; 10 nm-18 μm), and (iv) Personal cascade impactor Sioutas (PCIS; <250 nm - 10 μm). Taking the BLPI as an internal reference, the best agreement regarding mass size distributions was obtained with the nano-BLPI, independently of the aerosol load and aerosol chemical composition. The nano-Moudi showed a good agreement for part icle sizes >320 nm, whereas for particle diameters <320 nm this instrument recorded larger mass concentrations in outdoor air than the internal reference. This difference could be due to particle bounce, to the dissociation of semi volatiles in the coarser stages and/or to particle shrinkage during transport through the impactor due to higher temperature inside this impactor. Further research is needed to understand this behaviour. With regard to the PCIS, their size-resolved mass concentrations were compar able with other impactors for PM1, PM2 and PM10, but the cut-off at 250 nm did not seem to be consistent with that of the internal reference.
- Preprint
(1185 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(331 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
-
RC1: 'Reviewer Comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2016
- AC1: 'Response to Referee #1', A.S. Fonseca, 26 Feb 2016
-
RC2: 'Review result', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Feb 2016
- AC2: 'Response to Referee #2', A.S. Fonseca, 15 Mar 2016
-
SC1: 'Reviewer Comment', T. Hussein, 15 Mar 2016
- AC3: 'Response to Short Comment', A.S. Fonseca, 15 Mar 2016
-
RC1: 'Reviewer Comments', Anonymous Referee #1, 13 Feb 2016
- AC1: 'Response to Referee #1', A.S. Fonseca, 26 Feb 2016
-
RC2: 'Review result', Anonymous Referee #2, 26 Feb 2016
- AC2: 'Response to Referee #2', A.S. Fonseca, 15 Mar 2016
-
SC1: 'Reviewer Comment', T. Hussein, 15 Mar 2016
- AC3: 'Response to Short Comment', A.S. Fonseca, 15 Mar 2016
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1,441 | 837 | 109 | 2,387 | 199 | 97 | 122 |
- HTML: 1,441
- PDF: 837
- XML: 109
- Total: 2,387
- Supplement: 199
- BibTeX: 97
- EndNote: 122
Cited
6 citations as recorded by crossref.
- ESEM-EDS-based analytical approach to assess nanoparticles for food safety and environmental control M. Mattarozzi et al. 10.1016/j.talanta.2018.12.093
- Size distribution and single particle characterization of airborne particulate matter collected in a silicon carbide plant T. Ervik et al. 10.1039/C8EM00518D
- An annual time series of weekly size-resolved aerosol properties in the megacity of Metro Manila, Philippines C. Stahl et al. 10.1038/s41597-020-0466-y
- Particulate matter produced during commercial sugarcane harvesting and processing: A respiratory health hazard? J. Le Blond et al. 10.1016/j.atmosenv.2016.11.012
- Phytosampling—a supplementary tool for particulate matter (PM) speciation characterization C. Guo et al. 10.1007/s11356-021-13292-z
- Precision and Accuracy of a Direct-Reading Miniaturized Monitor in PM2.5 Exposure Assessment F. Borghi et al. 10.3390/s18093089