Exposure Assessment: Methods

Particle size distributions and hygroscopic restructuring of ultrafine particles emitted during thermal spraying

“…Nevertheless, distinguishing between the two particle populations based on their intrinsic properties, is of primary importance for assessing their potential toxicological and health impacts (Ganguly et al, 2018;Limbach et al, 2007;Song et al, 2009). Discriminating unintentionally-released UFPs -also referred to as process-generated or incidental nanoparticles -from background aerosol particles using methods based on spatially or temporally distributed observations are already reported in the literature (Kuhlbusch et al, 2011(Kuhlbusch et al, , 2009Schill and Chosewood, 2013;OECD, 2015;Asbach et al, 2016;Dahmann, 2016). Most of these methods employ instruments to quantify background and UFP sources in terms of aerosol metrics such as particle number or mass concentrations (Ono-Ogasawara et al, 2009;Peters et al, 2009;Asbach et al, 2012), but not based on intrinsic particle properties such as morphology.…”

“…Thermal spraying processes, such as atmospheric plasma spraying (APS) and High Velocity Oxy-fuel (HVOF) have been associated with high UFP emissions (Salmatonidis et al, 2019). Unintentional release of UFPs in industrial settings frequently results in high exposure concentrations, which contrast with relatively low background particle concentrations (Fonseca et al, 2015;Dahmann, 2016;van Broekhuizen, 2017). Nevertheless, distinguishing between the two particle populations based on their intrinsic properties, is of primary importance for assessing their potential toxicological and health impacts (Ganguly et al, 2018;Limbach et al, 2007;Song et al, 2009).…”