Review of Published Laboratory-Based Aerosol Sampler Efficiency, Performance and Comparison Studies (1994–2021)
Abstract
:1. Introduction
- Inhalable fraction—this approximates to the fraction of airborne material that enters the nose and mouth during breathing, and is therefore available for deposition anywhere in the respiratory tract.
- Thoracic fraction—this is the fraction of inhaled airborne material penetrating beyond the larynx.
- Respirable fraction—this is the inhaled airborne material that penetrates to the lower gas exchange region of the lung.
2. Methods
2.1. Search Strategies
2.2. Data Extraction and Collection Process
- Aim of the article (this is not specified in EN13205; however, this has been added as contextual information);
- Fraction assessed;
- Samplers;
- Test conditions:
- ○
- Test variables;
- ○
- Particle aerodynamic diameter (geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviation (GSD) where reported);
- ○
- Wind speed;
- ○
- Wind direction;
- ○
- Aerosol composition;
- ○
- Aerosol agglomeration;
- ○
- Collected mass and/or internally separated mass;
- ○
- Aerosol charge;
- ○
- Sampler specimen variability (for EN13205, this is required for the respirable and thoracic fractions);
- ○
- Excursion from the nominal flow rate (for EN13205, this is required for the respirable and thoracic fractions);
- ○
- Flow rates applied;
- ○
- Particle collection substrates handling;
- ○
- Wall deposits considered;
- ○
- Weighing (balance used).
- Experimental system characteristics:
- ○
- Temperature;
- ○
- Pressure;
- ○
- Aerosol used (mono or poly dispersed) and characteristics (GSD);
- ○
- Correction factors for particle shape; SD (size distribution and concentration);
- ○
- Correction factors for particle density;
- ○
- Determination of test aerosol concentration;
- ○
- Position and orientation of the sampler;
- ○
- Pumps used and their volumetric flow deviation.
3. Results
3.1. Samplers and Size Fractions Studied
Fraction Assessed | Samplers | Flow Rate Used in Reported Article (L/min) | Reference |
---|---|---|---|
Inhalable | IOM | 2 | [19] |
Button | 4 | ||
GSP | 2 | ||
37 mm CFC | 2 | ||
Inhalable | IOM | 2 | [20] |
Button | 4 | ||
GSP | 3.5 | ||
Inhalable | IOM | 2 | [21] |
Button | 4 | ||
GSP | 3.5 | ||
37 mm CFC | 2.25 | ||
Inhalable | IOM | Not stated | [22] |
Seven hole | Not stated | ||
GSP | Not stated | ||
37 mm CFC | Not stated | ||
Inhalable | IOM | 2 | [23] |
Seven hole | 2 | ||
GSP | 3.5 | ||
PAS-6 | 2 | ||
PERSPEC | 2 | ||
CIP-10l | 10 | ||
37 mm OFC | 2 | ||
37 mm CFC | 2 | ||
Inhalable | IOM | 2 | [24] |
Button | 4 | ||
37 mm CFC | 2 | ||
Inhalable | IOM | Not stated | [34] |
37 mm CFC | Not stated | ||
Inhalable | 25 mm CFC | 2 | [35] |
New inhalable (no further details) | 2 | ||
Inhalable | IOM | 2 | [36] |
CIP 10-l | 10 | ||
37 mm CFC | 1, 2 | ||
37 mm CFC with ACCU-CAP insert | 1, 2 | ||
Button | 4 | ||
Inhalable | IOM | 2 | |
Button | 4 | [37] | |
GSP | 3.5 | ||
37 mm CFC | 2 | ||
Respirable | 10 mm Dorr–Oliver cyclone | 1.7 | [25] |
SKC Plastic cyclone | 1.9 | ||
Casella Plastic cyclone | 1.9 | ||
SKC Aluminium cyclone | 1.9 | ||
South Africa Cyclone | 1.9 | ||
Lippmann 6 mm cyclone | 2.4 | ||
ODPN Cyclone | 0.8 | ||
CXF-2 virtual impactor | 2.0 | ||
MRE 113A | 10 | ||
CIP 10-R | 10 | ||
C.A.Th.A sampler | 2.0 | ||
Lippmann 12 mm cyclone | 10 | ||
Respirable | Nylon cyclone | 1.5, 1.7 | [26] |
SKC Aluminium cyclone | 2.4, 2.7 | ||
New foam sampler | 3.8, 10 | ||
Respirable | Metal bodied cyclone (Casella based on Higgins–Dewell) | 2.1 | [38] |
Conductive plastic cyclone based on Higgins–Dewell (Casella) | 2.1 | ||
BGI cyclone | 2.1 | ||
Respirable | 10 mm nylon cyclone | 1.65 | [27] |
SKC Aluminium cyclone | 2.67 | ||
Multi-Inlet cyclone | 2.13 | ||
Big Body cyclone | 2.30 | ||
Respirable | GK2.69 | 4.2, 4.4 | [30] |
FSP10 | 10, 11.2 | ||
CIP10R | 10 | ||
Respirable | 10 mm Dorr–Oliver | 1.7 | [28] |
SKC Aluminium cyclone | 2, 5 | ||
BGI4L cyclone | 2.2, 4 | ||
GK2.69 cyclone | 4.4 | ||
Respirable | GK2.69 | 4.2 | [39] |
FSP10 | 10 | ||
CIP10-R | 9 | ||
GK 4.16 | 9 | ||
PPI 8 | 8 | ||
Respirable | Graphite filled Casella | 2.1 | |
BGI stainless steel | 2.1 | ||
BGI carbon steel | 2.1 | [40] | |
SKC Aluminium cyclone | 2.1 | ||
Respirable | CIP10-R | 10 | |
GK2.69 | 4.2 | [41] | |
FSP10 | 10 | ||
Respirable | 10 mm Dorr–Oliver cyclone | 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3 | [42] |
Higgins–Dewell cyclone | 1.5, 2, 2,5, 3 | ||
Inhalable and respirable | IOM | 2 | [29] |
37 mm CFC | 2 | ||
SKC Aluminium cyclone | 2.5 | ||
Inhalable and respirable | IOM | 2 | [43] |
IOM-MOD | 2 | ||
Zefon coal dust cassette | 2 | ||
Thoracic | CATHIA | 7 | |
Modified cowled | 2 | [32] | |
IOM thoracic | 2 | ||
GK2.69 thoracic | 1.6 | ||
Modified SIMPEDS | 0.8 | ||
Modified IOM inhalable | 2 | ||
Thoracic | GK2.69 | 1.6 | [31] |
GK4.126 | 2.7, 3.0, 3.3, 3.6 | ||
FSP10 | 4.0 | ||
Inhalable, respirable and thoracic | Modified IOM sampler | 2 | |
37 mm CFC | Not stated | [33] | |
37 mm OFC | Not stated | ||
Respicon | Not stated | ||
Two stage cascade impactor | 10 | ||
IOM | 2 |
3.2. Aerosols and Conventions Used
3.2.1. Agricultural Dusts
3.2.2. Aluminium Oxide
3.2.3. Ammonium Fluorescein
3.2.4. Arizona Road Dust
3.2.5. Coal Dust
3.2.6. Glass Microspheres
3.2.7. ISO Test Dust
3.2.8. Organic Dust
3.2.9. Polystyrene
3.2.10. Potassium Sodium Tartrate
3.2.11. Quartz
3.2.12. Refractory Mineral Dust
3.2.13. Sodium Fluorescein
3.2.14. Test Aerosol (Not Stated)
3.3. Correction Factors
3.4. Other Aspects Identified for Consideration
4. Discussion
4.1. Summary of the Studies
4.2. Terminology Used
4.3. Conventions Used
4.4. Discussion on Experimental Set-Ups
4.4.1. Test Conditions
4.4.2. Particle Aerodynamic Diameter
4.4.3. Wind Speeds
4.4.4. Wind Direction
4.4.5. Aerosol Composition
4.4.6. Aerosol Agglomeration
4.4.7. Collected Mass and/or Internally Separated Mass
4.4.8. Aerosol Charge
4.4.9. Sampler Specimen Variability
4.4.10. Excursion from the Nominal Flow Rate
4.4.11. Flow Rates Applied
4.4.12. Wall Deposits
4.4.13. Particle Collection Substrates Handling
4.4.14. Weighing
4.4.15. Temperature
4.4.16. Pressure
4.4.17. Aerosols Used
- EN13205-2 (Laboratory performance test, based on determination of sampling efficiency): For assessing respirable and thoracic samplers, the GSD for monodisperse aerosols is required to be less than 1.1. For assessing inhalable samplers, the GSD for near-monodisperse aerosols is required to be less than 1.3. In terms of aerosol composition, the aerosol (either monodisperse and/or polydisperse) can be spherical or approximately isometric.
- EN13205-4 (Laboratory performance test based on comparison of concentrations). This includes the requirement for selecting test dusts which can produce three polydisperse test dusts) and also that particles are required to be spherical (either solid or liquid) or approximately isometric. There is also the requirement for the particle aerodynamic diameter with the ranges being 1 to 100 µm for the inhalable fraction, 0.5 to 40 µm for the thoracic fraction and 0.5 to 15 µm for the respirable fraction.
- Is the GM and GSD of the test aerosol provided?
- Does the GSD of the test aerosol meet the requirements for the sampler fraction in the standard?
- Is the dispersion of the test aerosol stated (monodisperse, nearly monodisperse, polydisperse) and does this meet the requirements of the standard for the fraction(s) being assessed and the nature of the test?
4.4.18. Correction Factors for Particle Shape
4.4.19. Correction Factors for Particle Density
4.4.20. Determination of Test Aerosol Concentration
4.4.21. Position and Orientation of the Sampler
4.4.22. Pumps Used and Their Volumetric Flow Deviation
4.5. Limitations Identified by Authors of the Reviewed Articles
5. Conclusions
Supplementary Materials
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vincent, J.H.; Ramachandran, G.; Thomassen, Y.; Keeler, G.J. Application of recent advances in aerosol sampling science towards the development of improved sampling devices: The way ahead. J. Environ. Monit. 1999, 1, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- ISO 7708; Air Quality—Particle Size Fraction Definitions for Health-Related Sampling. International Standards Organisation: Geneva, Switzerland, 1992.
- BS EN 481:1993; Workplace Atmospheres: Size Fraction Definitions for Measurement of Airborne Particles. British Standards Institution: London, UK, 1993.
- ISO 7708:1995; Air Quality—Particle Size Fractions Definitions for the Health-Related Sampling. International Standards Organization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 1995.
- TC136/WG3/N192; Workplace Atmospheres-Assessment of Performance of Instruments for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations. CEN: Brussels, Belgium, 1997.
- Vincent, J.H. Particle Size-Selective Sampling of Particulate Air Contaminants; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1999.
- Lidén, G. Presentation of the results from round 1 of ASTEX. J. Aerosol Sci. 2000, 31, 270–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenny, L. Aerosol sampler testing exchange (ASTEX). J. Aerosol Sci. 2000, 31, 262–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- EN 481; Workplace Atmospheres—Specification for Conventions for Measurement of Suspended Matter in Workplace Atmospheres. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 1993.
- EN 482; Workplace Exposure—General Requirements for the Performance of Procedures for the Measurement of Chemical Agents. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2012.
- EN 13205-2; Workplace Exposure—Assessment of Sampler Performance for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations—Part 2: Laboratory Performance Test Based on Determination of Sampling Efficiency. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
- EN 13205-4; Workplace Exposure—Assessment of Sampler Performance for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations—Part 4: Laboratory Performance Test Based on Comparison of Concentrations. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
- Hanlon, J.; Galea, K.S.; Verpaele, S. Review of Workplace Based Aerosol Sampler Comparison Studies, 2004–2020. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Witschger, O.; Grinshpun, S.A.; Fauvel, S.; Basso, G. Performance of Personal Inhalable Aerosol Samplers in Very Slowly Moving Air When Facing the Aerosol Source. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2004, 48, 351–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenny, L.C. Developments in workplace aerosol sampling. A review. Analyst 1996, 121, 1233–1239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vincent, J.H. The principles of aerosol samplers and sampling. Grana 1991, 30, 409–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Clarivate Web of Science Home Page. Available online: http://apps.webofknowledge.com.ep.fjernadgang.kb.dk/WOS_GeneralSearch_input.do?product=WOS&search_mode=GeneralSearch&SID=Y2IshozWxdS9aElvxIA&preferencesSaved= (accessed on 17 November 2022).
- NCBI PubMed Home Page. Available online: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/ (accessed on 17 November 2022).
- Aizenberg, V.; Grinshpun, S.A.; Willeke, K.; Smith, J.; Baron, P.A. Performance characteristics of the button personal inhalable aerosol sampler. AIHA J. 2000, 61, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aizenberg, V.; Choe, K.; Grinshpun, S.A.; Willeke, K.; Baron, P.A. Evaluation of personal aerosol samplers challenged with large particles. J. Aerosol Sci. 2001, 32, 779–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aizenberg, V.; Grinshpun, S.A.; Willeke, K.; Smith, J.; Baron, P.A. Measurement of the sampling efficiency of personal inhalable aerosol samplers using a simplified protocol. J. Aerosol Sci. 2000, 31, 169–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenny, L.C.; Aitken, R.J.; Baldwin, P.E.J.; Beaumont, G.C.; Maynard, A.D. The sampling efficiency of personal inhalable aerosol samplers in low air movement environments. J. Aerosol Sci. 1999, 30, 627–638. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kenny, L.C.; Aitken, R.; Chalmers, C.; Fabriès, J.F.; Gonzalez-Fernandez, E.; Kromhout, H.; Lidén, G.; Mark, D.; Riediger, G.; Prodi, V. A collaborative European study of personal inhalable aerosol sampler performance. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 1997, 41, 135–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Reynolds, S.J.; Nakatsu, J.; Tillery, M.; Keefe, T.; Mehaffy, J.; Thorne, P.S.; Donham, K.; Nonnenmann, M.; Golla, V.; O’shaughnessy, P. Field and Wind Tunnel Comparison of Four Aerosol Samplers Using Agricultural Dusts. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2009, 53, 585–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Görner, P.; Wrobel, R.; Micka, V.; Skoda, V.; Denis, J.; Fabriès, J.F. Study of fifteen respirable aerosol samplers used in occupational hygiene. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2001, 45, 43–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Chen, C.-C.; Lai, C.-Y.; Shih, T.-S.; Hwang, J.-S. Laboratory Performance Comparison of Respirable Samplers. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1999, 60, 601–611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, C.; Huang, S.-H. Shift of Aerosol Penetration in Respirable Cyclone Samplers. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1999, 60, 720–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soo, J.-C.; Lee, T.; Kashon, M.; Kusti, M.; Harper, M. Quartz in coal dust deposited on internal surface of respirable size selective samplers. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2014, 11, D215–D219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- O’Shaughnessy, P.T.; Lo, J.; Golla, V.; Nakatsu, J.; Tillery, M.I.; Reynolds, S. Correction of sampler-to-sampler comparisons based on aerosol size distribution. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2007, 4, 237–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stacey, P.; Lee, T.; Thorpe, A.; Roberts, P.; Frost, G.; Harper, M. Collection Efficiencies of High Flow Rate Personal Respirable Samplers When Measuring Arizona Road Dust and Analysis of Quartz by X-ray Diffraction. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2014, 58, 512–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Lee, T.; Thorpe, A.; Cauda, E.; Harper, M. Calibration of high flow rate thoracic-size selective samplers. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2016, 13, D93–D98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maynard, A.D. Measurement of aerosol penetration through six personal thoracic samplers under calm air conditions. J. Aerosol Sci. 1999, 30, 1227–1242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Teikari, M.; Linnainmaa, M.; Laitinen, J.; Kalliokoski, P.; Vincent, J.; Tiitta, P.; Raunemaa, T. Laboratory and field testing of particle size-selective sampling methods for mineral dusts. AIHA J. 2003, 64, 312–318. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Smith, J.; Bartley, D. Effect of Sampler and Manikin Conductivity on the Sampling Efficiency of Manikin-Mounted Personal Samplers. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 2003, 37, 79–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalatoor, S.; Grinshpun, S.A.; Willeke, K.P.D.; Baron, P.A. New aerosol sampler with low wind sensitivity and good filter collection uniformity. Atmos. Environ. 1995, 29, 1105–1112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Görner, P.; Simon, X.; Wrobel, R.; Kauffer, E.; Witschger, O. Laboratory Study of Selected Personal Inhalable Aerosol Samplers. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2010, 54, 165–187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Sleeth, D.K.; Vincent, J.H. Performance Study of Personal Inhalable Aerosol Samplers at Ultra-Low Wind Speeds. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2012, 56, 207–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Maynard, A.D.; Kenny, L.C. Performance assessment of three personal cyclone models, using an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer. J. Aerosol Sci. 1995, 26, 671–684. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stacey, P.; Thorpe, A.; Echt, A. Performance of High Flow Rate Personal Respirable Samplers When Challenged with Mineral Aerosols of Different Particle Size Distributions. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2016, 60, 479–492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gudmundsson, A.; Lidén, G. Determination of Cyclone Model Variability Using a Time-of-Flight Instrument. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 1998, 28, 197–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lee, T.; Kim, S.W.; Chisholm, W.P.; Slaven, J.; Harper, M. Performance of High Flow Rate Samplers for Respirable Particle Collection. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2010, 54, 697–709. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bartley, D.L.; Chen, C.-C.; Song, R.; Fischbach, T.J. Respirable Aerosol Sampler Performance Testing. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1994, 55, 1036–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Patts, J.R.; Barone, T.L. Comparison of coarse coal dust sampling techniques in a laboratory-simulated longwall section. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2017, 14, 323–334. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH). Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH): Cincinnati, OH, USA, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- EN 481; Size Fraction Definations for Measurement of Airborne Particles in the Workplace. European Standardization Committee (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 1992.
- American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices; American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists: Cincinnati, OH, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- EN 13205-1:2014; Workplace Exposure—Assessment of Sampler Performance for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations—Part 1: General Requirements. European Committee for Standardization: Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
- CEN/TR 13205-3; Workplace Exposure—Assessment of Sampler Performance for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations—Part 3: Analysis of Sampling Efficiency Data. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
- EN 13205-5; Workplace Exposure—Assessment of Sampler Performance for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations—Part 5: Aerosol Sampler Performance Test and Sampler Comparison Carried Out at Workplaces. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
- EN 13205-6:2014; Workplace Exposure—Assessment of Sampler Performance for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations—Part 6: Transport and Handling Tests. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2014.
- Verpaele, S.; Butler, O. Measurements of Trace Metals and Metalloids. Deliberations from an ASTM Workshop. Available online: https://synergist.aiha.org/202008-trace-metals-metalloids (accessed on 24 June 2021).
- ASTM D8358-211; Standard Guide for Assessment and Inclusion of Wall Deposits in the Analysis of Single-Stage Samplers for Airborne Particulate Matter. ASTM International: West Conshohoken, PA, USA, 2021.
- EN 1540; Workplace Exposure—Terminology. European Standization Committee (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2011.
- ISO 15767:2009; Workplace Atmospheres—Controlling and Characterizing Uncertainty in Weighing Collected Aerosols. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
- EN 13890:2009; Workplace Exposure—Procedures for Measuring Metals and Metalloids in Airborne Particles—Requirements and Test Methods. European Committee for Standardization (CEN): Brussels, Belgium, 2009.
Aerosol Used | Fraction | GM (GSD) of Aerosol (µm) | Samplers | Conventions Used | Publication Date | Reference |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Agriculture * | Inhalable | Swine: 10.3–17.9 (5.6–8.6) | IOM | None stated | 2009 | [24] |
Chicken: 7.6–33.0 (2.6–4.2) | Button | |||||
Turkey: 3.9–13.6 (3.1–4.3) | 37 mm CFC | |||||
Aluminium oxide | Inhalable | 7, 29, 70 µm (1.35) | IOM | ACGIH (1999)/CEN (1993)/ISO (1995) | 2000 | [19] |
Button | ||||||
GSP | ||||||
37 mm CFC | ||||||
Inhalable | MMAD: 70 (1.35) | IOM | ACGIH (2000)/CEN (1993)/ISO (1995) | 2001 | [20] | |
Button | ||||||
GSP | ||||||
MMAD: 7, 29 and 70 (GSD not supplied) | IOM | ACGIH (1999)/CEN (1993)/ISO (1995) | 2000 | [21] | ||
Button | ||||||
GSP | ||||||
37 mm CFC | ||||||
6–90 (1.2–1.4) | IOM | ACGIH (1985)/CEN (1993)/ISO (1995) | 1999 | [22] | ||
Seven-hole | ||||||
GSP | ||||||
37 mm CFC | ||||||
1–25 (1.53–5) | IOM | CEN pre-standard (1995) | 1997 | [23] | ||
Seven-hole | ||||||
GSP | ||||||
PAS-6 | ||||||
PERSPEC | ||||||
CIP-10l | ||||||
37 mm OFC | ||||||
37 mm CFC | ||||||
Inhalable | MMAD (wind speeds of 0.10 m/s, 0.24 m/s and 0.42 m/s); F1200 (9.6, 9.5, 9.3) F800 (13.9, 12.8, 12.4) F500 (28.8, 32.7, 28.7) | IOM | ISO (1992)/CEN (1992)/ACGIH (1985) | 2012 | [37] | |
Button | ||||||
GSP | ||||||
37 mm CFC | ||||||
Respirable | MMAD of 4.45 and 2.86 µm | CIP10R | ISO/CEN (2002)/ACGIH (2006) | 2010 | [41] | |
GK2.69 | ||||||
FSP10 | ||||||
25 mm open cowl (ref) | ||||||
Ammonium fluorescein | Respirable | 2.1–14.6 µm (0.1–0.5) | GK2.69 | ACGIH(2014)/CEN(1993)/ISO (1995) | 2016 | [31] |
GK4.126 | ||||||
FSP10 | ||||||
Respirable | Not discussed | CIP10R | ISO/CEN/ACGIH | 2010 | [41] | |
GK2.69 | ||||||
FSP10 | ||||||
25 mm open cowl (ref) | ||||||
Arizona Road Dust | Respirable | 2.8 and 4.6 (GSD not presented) | GK2.69 | None stated | 2014 | [30] |
FSP 10 | ||||||
CIP10R | ||||||
SIMPEDS (ref) | ||||||
Respirable | 1 m/s: 17.4 (1.86) 2 m/s: 22 (1.98) | GK2.69 | ISO/CEN/ACGIH discussed | 2016 | [39] | |
FSP10 | ||||||
CIP10R | ||||||
PPI8 | ||||||
SIMPEDS (ref) | ||||||
Coal Dust | Respirable | Close to 15 µm (1.8) | 10 mm Dorr–Oliver cyclone | CEN (1993)/ISO (1995)/ACGIH (1994–95) respirable convention | 2001 | [25] |
SKC Plastic cyclone | ||||||
Casella Plastic cyclone | ||||||
SKC Aluminium cyclone | ||||||
South Africa Cyclone | ||||||
Lippmann 6 mm cyclone | ||||||
ODPN Cyclone | ||||||
CXF-2 virtual impactor | ||||||
MRE 113A | ||||||
CIP 10-R | ||||||
C.A.Th.A. sampler | ||||||
Lippmann 12 mm cyclone | ||||||
Inhalable | 7.8 (GSD not stated) | GK2.69 | ISO/CEN/ACGIH discussed | 2016 | [39] | |
FSP10 | ||||||
CIP10R | ||||||
GK4.16 | ||||||
PPI8 | ||||||
SIMPEDS (ref) | ||||||
Respirable | Not stated | 10 mm Dorr–Oliver | None stated | 2014 | [28] | |
SKC Aluminium cyclone | ||||||
BGI4L cyclone | ||||||
GK2.69 | ||||||
Inhalable and respirable | 53 and 38–75 (no GSD stated) | IOM inhalable | None stated | 2017 | [43] | |
IOM-MOD | ||||||
Zefon coal dust cassette | ||||||
Glass microspheres | Respirable | MMAD of 24 µm and GSD of 1.4 µm in horizontal wind tunnel and MMAD of 27.5 µm (GSD of 1.6) in vertical calm air tunnel | IOM | CEN (various years)-ISO (1995)-ACGIH (1994–1995) | 2010 | [36] |
CIP10-l | ||||||
37 mm CFC | ||||||
37 mm CFC with ACCU-CAP insert | ||||||
Button | ||||||
Respirable | 4.0 (2.2) | Metal bodied cyclone (Casella) | ISO/CEN/ACGIH discussed | 1995 | [38] | |
Conductive plastic cyclone (Casella) | ||||||
BGI cyclone | ||||||
Thoracic | 1–25 (1.75–4) | CATHIA | CEN (1993)/ISO (1995) | 1999 | [32] | |
Modified cowled | ||||||
IOM thoracic | ||||||
GK2.69 thoracic | ||||||
Modified SIMPEDS | ||||||
Modified IOM inhalable | ||||||
Glass (Ballotini beads) | Thoracic | MMAD < 20 µm | GK2.69 | ACGIH(2014)/CEN(1993)/ISO (1995) | 2016 | [31] |
GK4.126 | ||||||
FSP10 | ||||||
ISO test dust | Inhalable and respirable | MMAD: ISO-still air: 1.37–7.28 (2.17–4.14) ISO-0.2 m/s: 2.23–9.17 (2.02–3.90) ISO-1.0 m/s: 2.01–10.10 (2.01–9.77) | IOM | Not stated | 2007 | [29] |
37 mm CFC | ||||||
SKC Aluminium cyclone | ||||||
Organic dust ** | Inhalable and respirable | Not stated | IOM | Not stated | 2007 | [29] |
37 mm CFC | ||||||
SKC Aluminium cyclone | ||||||
Polydisperse polystyrene | Respirable | Count mode: 0.7 (1.5)–4.6 (2.3) | Graphite filled Casella | Not stated | 1998 | [40] |
BGI stainless steel | ||||||
BGI carbon steel | ||||||
SKC Aluminium cyclone | ||||||
Potassium sodium tartrate | Respirable | 30–40 | Nylon cyclone | ISO (1993)/CEN (1992)/ACGIH (1998) | 1999 | [26] |
SKC Aluminium cyclone | ||||||
New foam sampler | ||||||
Respirable | 4 (2.2) | 10 mm Dorr–Oliver cyclone | ACGIH/ISO/CEN (years unclear) | 1994 | [42] | |
Higgins–Dewell cyclone | ||||||
Respirable | 3.5 (1.3) and 7.4 (1.5) | 10 mm nylon cyclone | ACGIH/ISO/CEN respirable convention | 1999 | [27] | |
SKC Aluminium cyclone | ||||||
Multi-Inlet cyclone | ||||||
Big Body cyclone | ||||||
Quartz | Inhalable, respirable and thoracic | 0.03–10 (no GSD provided) | Modified IOM IOM (ref) | Not stated | 2003 | [33] |
37 mm CFC | ||||||
37 mm OFC | ||||||
Respicon | ||||||
Two stage cascade impactor | ||||||
Refractory mineral dust (Mullite and 10% crystalline silica) | Respirable | 17.4 (no GSD reported) mass median | GK2.69 | None stated | 2014 | [39] |
FSP10 | ||||||
GK4.162 | ||||||
PPI | ||||||
Sodium fluorescein | Inhalable | 6 (no GSD reported) | IOM | Draft CEN (1995) | 1997 | [23] |
Seven hole | ||||||
GSP | ||||||
PAS-6 | ||||||
CIP10-l | ||||||
37 mm OFC | ||||||
37 mm CFC | ||||||
Inhalable | 17, 26, 38 (no GSD provided) | 25 mm CFC | None stated | 1995 | [35] | |
New inhalable sampler | ||||||
Test aerosol (not stated) | Inhalable | MMAD 7 (no GSD stated) | 37 mm CFC | None stated | 2003 | [34] |
IOM sampler |
Sampler | Manikin Facing the Emission Source | Manikin Side on to the Emission Source | Manikin Rotating |
---|---|---|---|
GK 2.69 | 1.00 | 0.95 | 0.93 |
PPI8 | 1.06 | 1.20 | 1.19 |
GK 4.162 | 1.09 | 1.03 | 1.07 |
FSP10 | 1.08 | 1.08 | 1.09 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Hanlon, J.; Galea, K.S.; Verpaele, S. Review of Published Laboratory-Based Aerosol Sampler Efficiency, Performance and Comparison Studies (1994–2021). Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2023, 20, 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010267
Hanlon J, Galea KS, Verpaele S. Review of Published Laboratory-Based Aerosol Sampler Efficiency, Performance and Comparison Studies (1994–2021). International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2023; 20(1):267. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010267
Chicago/Turabian StyleHanlon, James, Karen S. Galea, and Steven Verpaele. 2023. "Review of Published Laboratory-Based Aerosol Sampler Efficiency, Performance and Comparison Studies (1994–2021)" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 20, no. 1: 267. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20010267