Inter-comparison of a fast mobility particle sizer and a scanning mobility particle sizer incorporating an ultrafine water-based condensation particle counter

112Citations
Citations of this article
89Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

An Ultrafine Water-based Condensation Particle Counter (UWCPC), a Scanning Mobility Particle Sizer (SMPS) incorporating an UWCPC, and a Fast Mobility Particle Sizer (FMPS) were deployed to determine the number and size distribution of ultrafine particles. Comparisons of particle number concentrations measured by the UWCPC, SMPS, and FMPS were conducted to evaluate the performance of the two particle sizers using ambient particles as well as lab generated artificial particles. The SMPS number concentration was substantially lower than the FMPS (FMPS/SMPS = 1.56) measurements mainly due to the diffusion losses of particles in the SMPS. The diffusion loss corrected SMPS (C-SMPS) number concentration was on average ∼ 15% higher than the FMPS data (FMPS/C-SMPS = 0.87). Good correlation between the C-SMPS and FMPS was also observed for the total particle number concentrations in the size range 6 nm to 100 nm measured at a road-side urban site (r2 = 0.91). However, the particle size distribution measured by the C-SMPS was quite different from the size distribution measured by the FMPS. An empirical correction factor for each size bin was obtained by comparing the FMPS data to size-segregated UWCPC number concentrations for atmospheric particles. The application of the correction factor to the FMPS data (C-FMPS) greatly improved the agreement of the C-SMPS and C-FMPS size distributions. The agreement of the total particle concentrations also improved to well within 10% (C-FMPS/C-SMPS = 0.95). © 2009 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

References Powered by Scopus

An Association between Air Pollution and Mortality in Six U.S. Cities

6836Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Aerosol classification by electric mobility: apparatus, theory, and applications

1173Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

External control of 20th century temperature by natural and anthropogenic forcings

537Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Impact of nanoparticles on human and environment: review of toxicity factors, exposures, control strategies, and future prospects

353Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Review: Particle number size distributions from seven major sources and implications for source apportionment studies

204Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Ultrafine particles and PM<inf>2.5</inf> in the air of cities around the world: Are they representative of each other?

134Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jeong, C. H., & Evans, G. J. (2009). Inter-comparison of a fast mobility particle sizer and a scanning mobility particle sizer incorporating an ultrafine water-based condensation particle counter. Aerosol Science and Technology, 43(4), 364–373. https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820802662939

Readers over time

‘10‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘2405101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 45

62%

Researcher 18

25%

Professor / Associate Prof. 8

11%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

3%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Engineering 25

42%

Environmental Science 23

38%

Chemistry 7

12%

Physics and Astronomy 5

8%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0