Abstract
Regional studies focusing on the role of atmospheric nanoparticles in climate change have gained impetus in the last decade. Several multi-institutional studies involving measurement of nanoparticles with several kinds of instruments are on the rise. It is important to harmonize these measurements as the instruments may work on different techniques or principles and are developed by different manufacturers. Scanning mobility particle sizers (SMPS) are often used to measure size distribution of nanoparticles in the airborne phase. Two such commercially available instruments namely, GRIMM and TSI-SMPS have been compared for ambient and laboratory generated conditions. A stand-alone condensation particle counter (CPC) of TSI make was used as a reference for particle concentration measurements. The consistency of the results in terms of mean size and geometric standard deviation was seen to be excellent for both the SMPSs, with GRIMM always showing slightly (approximately 10 %) lower mean size. The integrated number concentration from GRIMM-SMPS was seen to be closer to stand-alone reference CPC compared to TSI-SMPS, for an ambient overnight comparison. However, a concentration-dependent response, i.e. the variations between the two instruments increasing with the concentration, was observed and possible reasons for this have been suggested. A separate experiment was performed for studying the modifying effect of diffusion dryer and sheath air dryer on the measured aerosol size spectra. A significant hygroscopic growth was noted when diffusion dryer was attached to one of the SMPS. The introduction of sheath air dryer in GRIMM-SMPS produced a significant shift towards lower mean size. These results have been compared and discussed with the recent inter-comparison results to strengthen and harmonize the measurement protocols.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ankilov A et al (2002) Intercomparison of number concentration measurements by various aerosol particle counters. Atmos Res 62:177–207
Asbach C, Kaminski H, Fissan H, Monz C, Dahmann D, Mülhopt S, Paur HR, Kiesling HJ, Hermann F, Voetz M, Kuhlbusch TAJ (2009) Comparison of four mobility particle sizers with different time resolution for stationary exposure measurements. J Nanopart Res 11:1593–1609
Biswas P, Wu CY (2005) Critical review: nanoparticles and the environment. J Air Waste Manag Assoc 55:708–746
Biswas S, Fine PM, Geller MD, Hering SV, Sioutas C (2005) Performance evaluation of a recently developed water-based condensation particle counter. Aerosol Sci Technol 39:419–427
Giechaskiel B, Dilara P, Andersson J (2008a) Particle Measurement Programme (PMP) Light-Duty Inter-Laboratory Exercise: repeatability and reproducibility of the particle number method. Aerosol Sci Technol 42:528–543
Giechaskiel B, Dilara P, Sandbach E, Andersson J (2008b) Particle Measurement Programme (PMP) Light-Duty Inter-Laboratory Exercise: comparison of different particle number measurement systems. Meas Sci Technol 19:095401
Helsper C, Horn HG, Schneider F, Wehner B, Wiedensohler A (2008) Intercomparison of five mobility particle size spectrometers for measuring atmospheric submicrometer aerosol particles. Gefahrst Reinhalt Luft 68:475–481
Hering SV, Stolzenburg MR, Quant FR, Oberreit DR, Keady PB (2005) A laminar-flow, water-based condensation particle counter (WCPC). Aerosol Sci Technol 39:659–672
Koch W, Pohlmann G, Schwarz K (2008) A reference number concentration generator for ultrafine aerosols based on Brownian coagulation. J Aerosol Sci 39:150–155
Leskinen J, Joutsensaari J, Lyyränen J, Koivisto J, Ruusunen J, Järvelä M, Tuomi T, Hämeri K, Auvinen A, Jokiniemi J (2012) Comparison of nanoparticle measurement instruments for occupational health applications. J Nanopart Res 14:718
Lui PSK, Deshler T (2003) Causes of concentration differences between a scanning mobility particle sizer and a condensation particle counter. Aerosol Sci Technol 37:916–923
Mordas G, Manninen HE, Petäjä T, Aalto PP, Hämeri K, Kulmala M (2008) On operation of the ultra-fine water-based CPC TSI 3786 and comparison with other TSI models (TSI 3776, TSI 3772, TSI 3025, TSI 3010, TSI 3007). Aerosol Sci Technol 42:152–158
Mulholland GW, Donnelly MK, Hagwood CR, Kukuck SR, Hackley VA, Pui DYH (2006) Measurement of 100 nm and 60 nm particle standards by differential mobility analysis. J Res NIST 111(4):257–312
Peters A, Wichmann HE, Tuch T, Heinrich J, Heyder J (1997) Respiratory effects are associated with the number of ultrafine particles. Am J Respir Crit Care 155:1376–1383
Schlatter J (2006) Comparison of Grimm and TSI condensation particle counters. 10 ETH-Conference on Combustion Generated Particles Zurich, 21–23 August. (http://www.metas.ch/metasweb/Fachbereiche/Partikel_und_Aerosole/Annexes/Dokumente_Nanopartikel/ETH2006GrimmTSI.pdf)
Shamjad PM, Tripathi SN, Aggarwal SG, Mishra SK, Joshi M, Khan A, Sapra BK, Ram K (2012) Comparison of experimental and modeled absorption enhancement by black carbon (BC) cored polydisperse aerosols under hygroscopic conditions. Environ Sci Technol 46(15):8082–8089
Watson JG, Chow JC, Sodeman DA, Lowenthal DH, Chang MCO, Park K, Wang X (2011) Comparison of four scanning mobility particle sizers at the Fresno Supersite. Particuology 9(3):204–209
Wiedensohler A et al (2012) Particle mobility size spectrometers: harmonization of technical standards and data structure to facilitate high quality long-term observations of atmospheric particle number size distributions. Atmos Meas Tech 5:657–685
Acknowledgments
This study was carried out with support from Board of Research in Nuclear Sciences, Department of Atomic Energy, India (under BRNS Project no. 2009/36/119-BRNS/3384 dated 18/03/2010). We acknowledge the help of Ms. Monika Srivastava in conducting the experiments.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Joshi, M., Sapra, B.K., Khan, A. et al. Harmonisation of nanoparticle concentration measurements using GRIMM and TSI scanning mobility particle sizers. J Nanopart Res 14, 1268 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1268-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11051-012-1268-8