Evaluation of the Alphasense Optical Particle Counter (OPC-N2) and the Grimm Portable Aerosol Spectrometer (PAS-1.108) - PubMed Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2016;50(12):1352-1365.
doi: 10.1080/02786826.2016.1232859. Epub 2016 Sep 7.

Evaluation of the Alphasense Optical Particle Counter (OPC-N2) and the Grimm Portable Aerosol Spectrometer (PAS-1.108)

Sinan Sousan  1 , Kirsten Koehler  2 , Laura Hallett  1 , Thomas M Peters  1
Affiliations

Evaluation of the Alphasense Optical Particle Counter (OPC-N2) and the Grimm Portable Aerosol Spectrometer (PAS-1.108)

Sinan Sousan et al. Aerosol Sci Technol. 2016.

Abstract

We compared the performance of a low-cost (∼$500), compact optical particle counter (OPC, OPC-N2, Alphasense) to another OPC (PAS-1.108, Grimm Technologies) and reference instruments. We measured the detection efficiency of the OPCs by size from 0.5 to 5 μm for monodispersed, polystyrene latex (PSL) spheres. We then compared number and mass concentrations measured with the OPCs to those measured with reference instruments for three aerosols: salt, welding fume and Arizona road dust. The OPC-N2 detection efficiency for monodispersed was similar to the PAS-1.108 for particles larger than 0.8 μm (minimum of 79% at 1 μm and maximum of 101% at 3 μm). For 0.5-μm particles, the detection efficiency of OPCN2 was underestimated at 78%, whereas PAS-1.108 overestimated concentrations by 183%. The mass concentrations from the OPCs were linear (r ≥ 0.97) with those from the reference instruments for all aerosols, although the slope and intercept were different. The mass concentrations were overestimated for dust (OPC-N2, slope = 1.6; PAS-1.108, slope = 2.7) and underestimated for welding fume (OPC-N2, slope = 0.05; PAS-1.108, slope = 0.4). The coefficient of variation (CV, precision) for OPC-N2 for all experiments was between 4.2% and 16%. These findings suggest that, given site-specific calibrations, the OPC-N2 can provide number and mass concentrations similar to the PAS-1.108 for particles larger than 1 μm.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Experimental set up used to determine the performance of the low-cost sensors.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Detection efficiency of the OPC-N2 and PAS-1.108 by aerodynamic diameter.
Figure 3
Figure 3. Particle number concentration by size measured for A) Salt; B) Welding fume; and C) ARD
Figure 4
Figure 4
Firmware calculated PM1, PM2.5, and PM10 mass concentrations for OPC-N2 and PAS-1.108 relative to reference mass concentration for the salt experiment.
Figure 5
Figure 5
Firmware calculated PM10 mass concentrations for OPC-N2 and PAS-1.108 relative to reference mass concentration for welding fume (circles) and ARD (diamonds) experiments.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Alphasense L. User Manual: OPC-N2 Optical Particle Counter, 072-0300. 2015;(3)
    1. Antonini JM. Health Effects of Welding. Critical Reviews in Toxicology. 2003;33:61–103. - PubMed
    1. Armendariz AJ, Leith D. Concentration measurement and counting efficiency for the aerodynamic particle sizer 3320. Journal of Aerosol Science. 2002;33:133–148.
    1. Belosi F, Santachiara G, Prodi F. Performance Evaluation of Four Commercial Optical Particle Counters. Atmospheric and Climate Sciences. 2013;03(01):6.
    1. Bhatti P, Newcomer L, Onstad L, Teschke K, Camp J, Morgan M, Vaughan TL. Wood dust exposure and risk of lung cancer. Occup Environ Med. 2011;68:599–604. - PMC - PubMed