Johannes Pelzer

TL;DR: Five different portable instrument types to monitor exposure to nanoparticles were subject to an intensive intercomparison measurement campaign, showing comparability on the order of ±30% for number concentration, LDSA concentration, and mean particle size, while significant deviations were found when a large amount of particles exceeded the upper or lower detection limit.

TL;DR: Concentrations were mainly predicted by the welding process and were significantly higher when local exhaust ventilation was inefficient or when welding was performed in confined spaces, and substitution of high-emission techniques like FCAW, efficient LEV, and using PAPRs where applicable can reduce exposure to welding fume.

TL;DR: The results indicated that the LDSA concentrations and the mean particle sizes provided by all investigated instruments in this study were in the order of ±30% of the reference value obtained from the SMPS when the particle sizes of the test aerosols generated were within 20-400nm and the instruments were properly calibrated.

TL;DR: In this article, a multi-metric exposure assessment approach was followed and a decision logic was developed to afford analysis of all results in concert, and the overall evaluation was classified by categories of likelihood of exposure.

TL;DR: Preliminary results of inventories of exposure scenarios for nanomaterials have indicated possible dermal exposure, and it is shown it is both feasible and useful to assess the potential dermal Exposure using shortened DREAM questionnaires.