Journal of Nanoparticle Research

, Volume 12, Issue 1, pp 83–89 | Cite as

Experimental evaluation of individual protection devices against different types of nanoaerosols: graphite, TiO2, and Pt

Special focus: Safety of Nanoparticles

Abstract

In this study different conventional individual protection devices, well-qualified for submicron particles were tested for different types of polydispersed nanoaerosols of TiO2, Pt, and graphite. The electrical mobility diameters of the generated particles are ranging from 9 to 19 nm for Pt, 9 to 90 nm for TiO2, and 15 to 90 nm for graphite. Toward this purpose, two specific test benches were used: one for the filter-based devices which are tested under a controlled air flow, and the other one for protective clothing and gloves under diffusion and without air flow. Different types of nanoaerosols, such as TiO2, Pt, and graphite, were generated. Electrostatic and HEPA (High Efficiency Particle Air) filters have shown the highest efficiency for graphite nanoparticles. The main hypothesis for explaining this effect is that electrostatic forces could enhance the graphite nanoparticles capture. Air-tight fabrics made of non-woven textile seem much more efficient in protecting workers against Pt, and TiO2 nanoparticles than cotton and polypropylene. With regard to protective clothing, no obvious effect linked to the aerosol type was observed. Gloves are found very efficient for TiO2 and Pt nanoaerosols. Therefore, no effect of aerosol on the protection efficiency of gloves was evidenced.

Keywords

Nanoparticles Filtration Fibrous filters Clothing Gloves Occupational environment Safety EHS 

References

  1. Balazy A, Podgorski A, Gradon L (2004) Filtration of nanosized aerosol particles in fibrous filters. I-Experimental results. J Aerosol Sci. European Abstract Conference Proceedings II:S967–S968Google Scholar
  2. Bazin BH (2007) Les nanoparticules. Un enjeu majeur pour la santé au travail? In: EDP Sciences. pp 74–78Google Scholar
  3. Golanski L, Guiot A, Rouillon F, Pocachard J, Tardif F (2009) Experimental evaluation of personal protection devices against graphite nanoaerosols: fibrous filter media, masks, protective clothing, and gloves. Hum Exp Toxicol 28:353–359CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Heim M, Mullins BJ, Wild M, Meyer J, Kasper G (2005) Filtration efficiency of aerosol particles below 20 nanometer. Aerosol Sci Technol 39:782–789Google Scholar
  5. Hinds WC (1999) Aerosol technology: properties, behavior, and measurement of airborne particles. Wiley-Interscience, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Huang SH, Huang YH, Chen CW and Chang CP (2007) Nanoparticles penetration through protective clothing materials. 3rd international symposium on nanotechnology. Taipei, Taiwan (Occup Environ Health, Aug 29 to Sep 1)Google Scholar
  7. Japuntich DA, Franklin LM, Pui DY, Kuehn TH, Kim SC, Viner AS (2007) A comparison of two nano-sized particle air filtration tests in the diameter range of 10 to 400 nanometer. J Nanopart Res 9:93–107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Kim SC, Harrington MS, Pui DYH (2007) Experimental study of nanoparticles penetration through commercial filter media. J Nanopart Res 9:117–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Nanotechnologies—Terminology and definitions for nano-objects—Nanoparticle, nanofibre and nanoplate (2008) First ISO standard for nanotechnology terminology ISO/TS 27687Google Scholar
  10. Oberdörster G (2000) Toxicology of ultrafine particles: in vivo studies. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A 358:2719–2740CrossRefADSGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.CEA-Grenoble, Liten, Laboratory of NanoChemistry and NanoSafetyCedex 9, GrenobleFrance

Personalised recommendations