Can We Trust Real Time Measurements of Lung Deposited Surface Area Concentrations in Dust from Powder Nanomaterials?

Abstract

A comparison between various methods for real-time measurements of lung deposited surface area (LDSA) using spherical particles and powder dust with specific surface area ranging from 0.03 to 112 m 2 g -1 was conducted. LDSA concentrations measured directly using Nanoparticle Surface Area Monitor (NSAM) and Aerotrak and were compared to LDSA concentrations recalculated from size distribution measurements using Electrical Low Pressure Impactor (ELPI) and Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS). FMPS and ELPI measurements were also compared to dust surface area concentrations estimated from gravimetrical filter measurements and specific surface areas.Measurement of LDSA showed very good correlation in measurements of spherical particles (R 2 > 0.97, Ratio 1.0 to 1.04). High surface area nanomaterial powders showed a fairly reliable correlation between NSAM and Aerotrak (R 2 0.73-0.93) and a material-dependent offset in the ratios (1.04-2.8). However, the correlation and ratio were inconsistent for lower LDSA concentrations. Similar levels of correlation were observed for the NSAM and the FMPS for high surface area materials, but with the FMPS overestimating the LDSA concentration. The ELPI showed good correlation with NSAM data for high LDSA materials (R 2 0.87-0.93), but not for lower LDSA concentrations (R 2 0.50-0.72). Comparisons of respirable dust surface area from ELPI data correlated well (R 2 > 0.98) with that calculated from filter samples, but materials-specific exceptions were present.We conclude that there is currently insufficient reliability and comparability between methods in the measurement of LDSA concentrations. Further development is required to enable use of LDSA for reliable dose metric and regulatory enforcement of exposure.

Nanomaterials Versus Ambient Ultrafine Particles: An Opportunity to Exchange Toxicology Knowledge

“…Great improvements have also been made in understanding the applicability of different measurement devices for airborne particles. These improvements include knowledge of the care needed in using and interpreting data obtained from charge-based instruments, particularly instruments using unipolar charging such as surface area monitors and the Fast Mobility Particle Sizer™ ( Asbach et al 2009 ; Levin et al 2016 ). These instruments can provide erroneous results when significant amounts of agglomerates and aggregates that are approximately 200 nm or more in size are present in the aerosol ( Todea et al 2015 ).…”

Data Shepherding in Nanotechnology. The Exposure Field Campaign Template

“…Currently, there is no available instrument capable of meeting all the requirements of exposure characterization of airborne NO and there is insufficient comparability between measurement methods [ 38 ]. A suite of devices is typically used to conduct an exposure characterization [ 9 ]; thus, information regarding instruments is included.…”

Determination of the Concentration of Ultrafine Aerosol Using an Ionization Sensor

“…Moreover, cascade impactors can be used to sample different aerosol fractions down to ultrafine particles [ 26 ]. The disadvantages of the counter methods are their relativity (the effect of which is the discrepancy between the indications of two different instruments) and the lack of appropriate methods of calibration [ 21 , 27 , 28 ]. The disadvantages of gravimetric methods are their low accuracy (which depends on the sensitivity of the scale), long analysis time (depending on weighing procedures, filter conditioning), and susceptibility to physical stimuli (shock, vibrations, handling by an analyst).…”