Evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures

A Dylos DC1100 was evaluated to: 1. Establish relationship between low-cost DC1100 and higher-cost pDR 1200; 2. Develop a method to convert DC1100 particle number into mass concentration to compare with respirable and inhalable mass references. A Dylos DC1100 was deployed in a swine CAFO, along with...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Jones, Samuel M.
Other Authors: Peters, Thomas M.
Format: Others
Language:English
Published: University of Iowa 2015
Subjects:
Online Access:https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1858
https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5915&context=etd
id ndltd-uiowa.edu-oai-ir.uiowa.edu-etd-5915
record_format oai_dc
spelling ndltd-uiowa.edu-oai-ir.uiowa.edu-etd-59152019-10-13T04:53:53Z Evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures Jones, Samuel M. A Dylos DC1100 was evaluated to: 1. Establish relationship between low-cost DC1100 and higher-cost pDR 1200; 2. Develop a method to convert DC1100 particle number into mass concentration to compare with respirable and inhalable mass references. A Dylos DC1100 was deployed in a swine CAFO, along with a pDR-1200 and filter set to collect respirable and inhalable particles. Deployment was conducted from December 2013 through February 2014 in 24 hour intervals. The pDR-1200 and respirable mass concentration was used to convert the DC1100 particle count to mass concentration. Two methods of conversion were used, physical property method (Method 1) and regression method (Method 2). Direct measurements from the DC1100 and pDR-1200 had a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.85. DC1100 particle number were converted to mass concentration using Method 1 and Method 2, the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.72 and 0.73, respectively compared to pDR-1200. The slope of the best-fit line was 1.01 for Method 1 and 0.70 for Method 2. When the DC1100 daily averages were compared to respirable mass, the physical property method had an R2 of 0.64 and a slope of 1.10. Regression method had an R2 of 0.62 and a slope of 0.80. Both methods underestimated inhalable mass concentrations with slopes < 0.13. The Dylos DC1100 can be used to estimate respirable mass concentrations within a CAFO. Using expensive dust monitors to correct the number of particles into a mass concentration is needed to establish a correction factor for the DC1100. Using these methods, correction factors can be determine for many occupational environment, with the physical property method being preferred over the regression method. 2015-07-01T07:00:00Z thesis application/pdf https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1858 https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5915&amp;context=etd Copyright 2015 Samuel M. Jones Theses and Dissertations eng University of IowaPeters, Thomas M. publicabstract Aerosol CAFO Dylos Low-Cost Occupational Exposure Swine Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering
collection NDLTD
language English
format Others
sources NDLTD
topic publicabstract
Aerosol
CAFO
Dylos
Low-Cost
Occupational Exposure
Swine
Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering
spellingShingle publicabstract
Aerosol
CAFO
Dylos
Low-Cost
Occupational Exposure
Swine
Biomedical Engineering and Bioengineering
Jones, Samuel M.
Evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures
description A Dylos DC1100 was evaluated to: 1. Establish relationship between low-cost DC1100 and higher-cost pDR 1200; 2. Develop a method to convert DC1100 particle number into mass concentration to compare with respirable and inhalable mass references. A Dylos DC1100 was deployed in a swine CAFO, along with a pDR-1200 and filter set to collect respirable and inhalable particles. Deployment was conducted from December 2013 through February 2014 in 24 hour intervals. The pDR-1200 and respirable mass concentration was used to convert the DC1100 particle count to mass concentration. Two methods of conversion were used, physical property method (Method 1) and regression method (Method 2). Direct measurements from the DC1100 and pDR-1200 had a coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.85. DC1100 particle number were converted to mass concentration using Method 1 and Method 2, the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.72 and 0.73, respectively compared to pDR-1200. The slope of the best-fit line was 1.01 for Method 1 and 0.70 for Method 2. When the DC1100 daily averages were compared to respirable mass, the physical property method had an R2 of 0.64 and a slope of 1.10. Regression method had an R2 of 0.62 and a slope of 0.80. Both methods underestimated inhalable mass concentrations with slopes < 0.13. The Dylos DC1100 can be used to estimate respirable mass concentrations within a CAFO. Using expensive dust monitors to correct the number of particles into a mass concentration is needed to establish a correction factor for the DC1100. Using these methods, correction factors can be determine for many occupational environment, with the physical property method being preferred over the regression method.
author2 Peters, Thomas M.
author_facet Peters, Thomas M.
Jones, Samuel M.
author Jones, Samuel M.
author_sort Jones, Samuel M.
title Evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures
title_short Evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures
title_full Evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures
title_fullStr Evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures
title_full_unstemmed Evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures
title_sort evaluation of a low-cost aerosol sensor to assess occupational exposures
publisher University of Iowa
publishDate 2015
url https://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/1858
https://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5915&amp;context=etd
work_keys_str_mv AT jonessamuelm evaluationofalowcostaerosolsensortoassessoccupationalexposures
_version_ 1719265263274164224