Instrument comparison for Aerosolized Titanium Dioxide

Recent toxicological studies have shown that the surface area of ultrafine particles (UFP i.e., particles with diameters less than 0.1 micrometer) has a stronger correlation with adverse health effects than does mass of these particles. Ultrafine titanium dioxide (TiO2) particles are widely used in industry, and their use is associated with adverse health outcomes, such as micro vascular dysfunctions and pulmonary damages.;The primary aim of this experimental study was to compare a variety of laboratory and industrial hygiene (IH) field study instruments all measuring the same aerosolized TiO2. The study also observed intra-instrument variability between measurements made by two apparently identical devices of the same type of instrument placed side-by-side.;The types of instruments studied were (1) DustTrak(TM) DRX, (2) Personal Data RAMs(TM) (PDR), (3) GRIMM, (4) Diffusion charger (DC) and (5) Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS). Two devices of each of the four IH field study instrument types were used to measure six levels of mass concentration of fine and ultrafine TiO2 aerosols in controlled chamber tests. Metrics evaluated included real-time mass, active surface area and number/geometric surface area distributions, and off-line gravimetric mass and morphology on filters. DustTrak(TM) DRXs and PDRs were used for mass concentration measurements. DCs were used for active surface area concentration measurements. GRIMMs were used for number concentration measurements. SMPS was used for inter-instrument comparisons of surface area and number concentrations.;The results indicated that two apparently identical devices of each DRX and PDR were statistically not different with each other for all the trials of both the sizes of powder (p \u3c 5%). Mean difference between mass concentrations measured by two DustTrak DRX devices was smaller than that measured by two PDR devices. DustTrak DRX measurements were closer to the reference method, gravimetric mass concentration, than the PDRs. Two apparently identical DC devices were statistically different with each other for fine particles but not for UFP. DC devices and SMPS were statistically different with each other for both sizes of particles. Two apparently identical GRIMM devices were statistically different with each other for fine particles. For UFP, results of GRIMM device were statistically different than SMPS but not for fine particles. These observations suggest that inter-device within instrument and inter-instrument agreements depend on particle size and instrument characteristics to measure nanoparticles at different concentration levels