Multi-instrument assessment of fine and ultrafine titanium dioxide aerosols

The measurement of fine (diameter: 100 nanometers-2.5 micrometers) and ultrafine (UF: < 100 nanometers) titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles is instrument dependent. Differences in measurements exist between toxicological and field investigations for the same exposure metric such as mass, number, or surface area because of variations in instruments used, operating parameters, or particle-size measurement ranges. Without appropriate comparison, instrument measurements create a disconnect between toxicological and field investigations for a given exposure metric. Our objective was to compare a variety of instruments including multiple metrics including mass, number, and surface area (SA) concentrations for assessing different concentrations of separately aerosolized fine and UF TiO2 particles. The instruments studied were (1) DustTrak™ DRX, (2) personal DataRAMs™ (PDR), (3) GRIMMTM, and (4) diffusion charger (DC). Two devices of each field-study instrument (DRX, PDR, GRIMM, and DC) were used to measure various metrics while adjusting for gravimetric mass concentrations of fine and UF TiO2 particles in controlled chamber tests. An analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to apportion the variance to inter-instrument (between different instrument-types), inter-device (within instrument), and intra-device components. Performance of each instrument-device was calculated using root mean squared error compared to reference methods: close-faced cassette and gravimetric analysis for mass and scanning mobility particle sizer (SMPS) real-time monitoring for number and SA concentrations. Generally, inter-instrument variability accounted for the greatest (62.6% or more) source of variance for mass, and SA-based concentrations of fine and UF TiO2 particles. However, higher intra-device variability (53.7%) was observed for number concentrations measurements with fine particles compared to inter-instrument variability (40.8%). Inter-device variance range(0.5-5.5%) was similar for all exposure metrics. DRX performed better in measuring mass closer to gravimetric than PDRs for fine and UF TiO2. Number concentrations measured by GRIMMs and SA measurements by DCs were considerably (40.8-86.9%) different from the reference (SMPS) method for comparable size ranges of fine and UF TiO2. This information may serve to aid in interpreting assessments in risk models, epidemiologic studies, and development of occupational exposure limits, relating to health effect endpoints identified in toxicological studies considering similar instruments evaluated in this study.

[A Method of Aerosol Particle Number Size Distribution Inversed by PM2.5 Mass Concentration in PRD]

The aerosol particle number size distribution(PNSD) is of great importance in calculating atmospheric radiation and optics. It can effectively supplement the inadequate observation of PNSD using the widely known aerosol mass concentration (PM_2.5) measurement to invert PNSD. It would be valuable for research that needs PNSD data, like atmospheric visibility calculation. This paper created a PNSD inversed method based on the statistics and parameterization of the dry aerosol PM_2.5 and PNSD dataset from the Guangzhou urban site's simultaneous measurements from November 2014 to January 2015. The inversed results appeared good in the accumulation mode, whereas more differences showed with higher PM_2.5 loading. The applicability and stability of this method makes it preferable. It would provide advanced technical support for the visibility calculation and application in PRD.