Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 1041–1048, 2012

Copyright © Taiwan Association for Aerosol Research

ISSN: 1680-8584 print / 2071-1409 online
doi: 10.4209/aaqr.2012.08.0204

Performance Evaluation of an Andersen Cascade Impactor with an Additional

Stage for Nanoparticle Sampling

Mitsuhiko Hata1*, Bao Linfa2, Yoshio Otani3, Masami Furuuchi1

1
School of Environmental Design, College of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa,
Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan
2
Graduate School of National Science and Technology, Kanazawa University, Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa, Ishikawa 920-
1192, Japan
3
School of Natural System, College of Science and Engineering, Kanazawa University, Kakuma-machi, Kanazawa,
Ishikawa 920-1192, Japan

ABSTRACT

This study describes the design and performance of an ambient air sampler consisting of an Andersen cascade impactor
using inertial filter technology (ANIF) as a supplemental stage to separate nano-particles smaller than 70 nm. The design
of the inertial filter resulted in an aerodynamic cutoff size of dp50 ~70 nm, a satisfactory sharpness in classification and a
separation behavior comparable to that of a previously reported nanosampler (NS). The pressure drop at the backup filter
in the sampler was ~30 kPa at a flow rate of 28.3 L/min. The ANIF has a number of advantages over currently available
samplers, such as LPI and nano-MOUDI, such as reducing the loss of semi-volatile components in ultrafine particles by
evaporation at reduced pressures, as well as having a smaller initial cost for the equipment for nanoparticle collection.
Furthermore, the size distribution of the ambient particles measured with the ANIF compared favorably with those
measured by conventional instruments that are currently available on the market.

Keywords: Nano-particles; Inertial filter; Impactor; Pressure drop.

INTRODUCTION For an accurate evaluation of the health effect of airborne

Fine particles with diameters of less than 2–3 μm, or
PM2.5, in ambient air also frequently contain high levels of
hazardous chemicals. This is particularly true for particles
with diameters of less than 1 μm (Spurny, 1999; Mayland
and Pui, 2007). Consequently, evaluating the chemical
characteristics of these ultrafine nanoparticles is particularly
important for an understanding of the impact to general
health of airborne particulates that are small enough to enter
the human respiratory system. Because a large proportion of
nanoparticles penetrate the lung periphery, i.e., the alveolar
region, particles deposited in the alveoli are readily transferred
to the blood and are then quickly dispersed throughout the
human body, including infants (Hinds, 1999; Bolch et al.,
2001; Semmler-Behnke et al., 2012). Furthermore, at least
one report on the effect that oral exposure to nanoparticles
has on the human body, has determined that all kind of
nanoparticle behavior in the environment could be issues
that should be investigated (Mahler et al., 2012).
*
Corresponding author. Tel./Fax: +81-76-234-4648
E-mail address: m-hata@t.kanazawa-u.ac.jp
particulates, it is necessary to determine the chemical
composition of particles with respect to particle size. This
is because the deposition site of inhaled particles changes
with particle size, and the clearance time of the deposited
particles varies depending on the deposition sites, leading
to differences in toxicity, even for the same composition of
particles. This information is particularly important for
nanoparticles (smaller than 100 nm in diameter) but reliable
data is very scarce.
In order to conduct various quantitative chemical analyses
of atmospheric particles, a relatively large mass of particles,
possibly on the order of a mg, must be collected from
atmospheric air by filtration. Although particles smaller than
0.1 μm, i.e., nanoparticles, account for a large proportion
of the total population, their mass is very small. Therefore,
all of the following nanoparticle samplers are designed to
have a long sampling time required to collect a sufficient
mass of atmospheric nanoparticles.
A number of samplers are available including low-
pressure impactors (LPI) (Hering et al., 1978a, b; Kauppinen
and Hillamo et al., 1989) and a nano-multi orifice uniform
deposit impactor (nano-MOUDI II) (Fang et al., 1991; MSP,
2012). The latest impactor technology is a noble novel active
personal nanoparticle sampler (PENS) with cutoff size of
1042 Hata et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 1041–1048, 2012
100 nm at a flow rate of 2 L/min within a pressure drop of
14.1 kPa (Tsai et al., 2012). A differential mobility analyzer
(DMA) (Knutdon and Whitby, 1975) may be used as a
classifier followed by the collection of classified particles
with a filter (Ono-Ogasawara et al., 2009). However, all of
these devices have drawbacks, which include a small
sampling rate, low charging efficiency for nanoparticles, the
production of artifacts, and the loss of unstable chemicals
by evaporation due to the large pressure drop (Hata et al.,
2009a).
The authors (Otani et al., 2007; Eryu et al., 2009; Furuuchi
et al., 2010a) developed an inertial filter to overcome these
difficulties. This filter has significant advantages, such as a
nanometer-size cutoff (dp50) diameter at a moderate
pressure drop (< 20–30 kPa), as well as a sufficiently high
sampling flow rate that permits the rapid collection of
particles. Based on the results of lab and field tests by the
authors (Furuuchi et al., 2009; Hata et al., 2009b), a sampler,
which consisted of impactor stages of PM10/PM2.5/PM1/PM0.5
followed by an inertial filter stage was developed (Furuuchi
et al., 2010a) and commercialized (KANOMAX, 2012).
The authors also developed a personal sampler to evaluate
exposure to nano-particles based on the inertial technology
(Furuuchi et al., 2010b). The inertial filter technology may
have possibilities beyond its application to the original
Nanosampler (NS), such as devices that could be used to
supplement existing samplers such as the Andersen cascade
impactor and the high-volume air sampler. Although there
might be a need for such supplemental devices, investigation
into it has not been done.
Fig. 1. Schematic diagram and picture of the Andersen sampler with an inertial filter (ANIF).
In the present study, as a possible application of the
inertial filter, an inertial filter stage with a cutoff size of 70
nm was designed to supplement the Andersen cascade
impactor as the last stage before the backup filter. The
collection efficiency curve and pressure drop were compared
with those for the Nanosampler (Furuuchi et al., 2010a;
KANOMAX, 2012) and the low pressure impactor (LPI).
The Andersen cascade impactor using an inertial filter with
a cutoff size of dp50 = 70 nm was used for the collection of
ambient particles, and the obtained size distribution was
compared with those from NSs and LPI. Sulfate and nitrate
ions as well as retrieved particle-bound polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons in nano-particles were also compared to
discuss the influence of evaporation losses.
STRUCTURE OF THE DEVELOPPED SAMPLER
Fig. 1 shows a schematic drawing and picture of the
Andersen cascade impactor using inertial filter technology
(ANIF). The sampler consists of an 8-stage impactor from
the Andersen cascade impactor (Tokyo dyrec AN-200), and
a nozzle section that will smoothly correct the flow from
the final impactor stage with a 0.43 μm cutoff size and then
introduce the flow to the inertial filter stage. All stages are
fixed by existing springs with extension plates. In order to
uniformly collect particles on the backup filter located
downstream from the inertial filter, the separation between
the nozzle exit to the filter surface was adjusted to 48 mm.
The sampler was designed to operate at a flow rate of 28.3
L/min, which is the same as the normal operating condition
 Hata et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 1041–1048, 2012 1043

for the Andersen cascade impactor. The inertial filter was
designed so that the webbed stainless steel fibers (Nippon
Seisen Co. Ltd., felt type, SUS-304, 5.6 μm diameter (σg =
1.1)) are packed on a support of crossed 200 μm stainless
steel wires in a plastic holder (polyoxymethylene, POM)
with a diameter of 4 mm and a length of 9 mm (Fig. 2). The
holder was placed downstream from the nozzle section. The
adoption of a filter holder helped facilitate the handling of
samples and it can be easily replaced with a new holder
onsite without directly touching the fibers. The specifications
of the inertial filters are summarized in Table 1.
density of generated ZnCl2 particles, which was determined
using an Aerosol Particle Mass Analyzer (KANOMAX,
APM 3600), or, by using a 1,870 kg/m3 average for the sizes
ranging from 50–100 nm. The number of particles larger
than 0.3 μm was measured using an optical particle counter
(Rion, KC-01). The pressure drop through the inertial filter
was measured during the separation performance test. The
total pressure drop from the ambient pressure to the sampler
exit was also measured.
SAMPLING OF AMBIENT PARTICLES

MEASURING THE PERFORMANCE OF THE
INERTIAL FILTER
Fig. 3 shows the experimental setup used to test the
performance of the inertial filters, which is the same as that
used in a previous paper (Furuuchi et al., 2010a). Zinc
chloride (ZnCl2) particles, generated using an evaporation-
condensation type aerosol generator were used as the test
aerosol. Zinc chloride was heated by an infrared ray image
furnace (ULVAC, RHL-E25P) at a temperature between
260–320°C, and was then cooled to produce particles. The
monodispersed ZnCl2 particles were classified using a
DMA (TSI Inc., MODEL 3071), then diluted with clean air
and introduced to the inertial filter at a flow rate of 28.3
L/min. The collection efficiency based on particle number
was determined using an aerosol electrometer (TSI, Model
3068). The pressure drop through the inertial filter was
measured by a digital manometer (Sokken, Model PE-33-
A1). The mobility equivalent diameter measured by the
DMA was converted to an aerodynamic diameter using the
In order to evaluate the performance of the ANIF that was
developed for ambient particles, ambient aerosol particles
were sampled using the ANIF simultaneously with two
NSs with different inertial filters cutoff size and a low-
pressure impactor (LPI, Tokyo Dylec, LP-20). The sampling
conditions are summarized in Table 2. Ambient particles
were collected on quartz fiber filters (Pallflex, 2500QAT-
UP) conditioned at 20°C and 50% RH in a weighing
chamber (Tokyo dyrec PWS-PM2.5) for 48 hours before
and after the sampling.
In order to compare the chemical content of particles
collected using the ANIF with those collected using the NS
and LPI, nitrate and sulfate ions and particle-bound
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were analyzed.
Filter samples were cut into small pieces and were ultra-
sonicated in 20 mL of ultra-pure water for 30 minutes, then
the nitrate and sulfate ions were analyzed by ion
chromatography (Toso IC-8010). Sixteen different PAH
compounds, Naphthalene (Nap), Acenaphthene (Ace),
Phenanthrene (Phe), Anthracene (Ant), Fluorene (Fle),

>5.5

SUS web 4.0

(a) (b)
Fig. 2. Inertial filter: (a) SUS-Web (SUS-304 fibers) loaded in a resin nozzle cartridge, (b) Cartridge structure.

Table 1. Specifications of tested inertial filters.

SUS fiber SUS fiber SUS fiber Pressure Cut off
Nozzle Flow rate
Sampler diameter loadings packing Drop diameter
(mm) (L/min)
(μm) (mg) density (-) (kPa) dp50 (μm)
(a) NS 9.8
9.8  4.8 0.013 40 25 0.07
(PM0.07) σg = 1.1
(b) NS 9.8
14.0  5.2 0.015 40 10 0.1
(PM0.1) σg = 1.1
(c) ANIF 5.6
3.8  4.0 0.007 28.3 25 0.07
(PM0.07) σg = 1.1
NS: Nanosampler; ANIF: Andersen cascade impactor with inertial filter.
1044 Hata et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 1041–1048, 2012

Aerosol generator 241Am

SMPS
1.5L/min. Aerosol
Electrometer
10L/min.
Dilution air
48.5L/min. Exhaust
Nin
Pump
Aerosol
Inertial Electrometer
Filter 10L/min.

Exhaust
Nout
Pump
Filter

Exhaust
MFC Pump
30L/min.
Fig. 3. Experiment setups for the performance testing of the inertial filter.

Table 2. Period and condition for ambient particle sampling.

Sampler Classification (μm) Unit period Flow (L/min)
13 stages (> 12.1, 8.5–12.1, 5.7–8.5, 3.9–5.7, 2.5–
28–31 days
Low pressure impactor (LPI) 3.9, 1.25–2.5, 0.76–1.25, 0.52–0.76, 0.33–0.52, 20
(1 month)
0.22–0.33, 0.13–0.22, 0.06–0.13, < 0.06)
6–7 days ×
Nanosampler (NS, inertial filter dp50 = 70 6 stages (> 10, 2.5–10, 1–2.5, 0.5–1, 0.07–0.5,
4–5 weeks 40
nm) < 0.07)
(1 month)
6–7 days ×
Nanosampler (NS, inertial filter dp50 = 100
6 stages (> 10, 2.5–10, 1–2.5, 0.5–1, 0.1–0.5, < 0.1) 4–5 weeks 40
nm)
(1 month)
Andersen cascade impactor with inertial 9 stages (> 11, 7–11, 4.7–7, 3.3–4.7, 2.1–3.3, 1.1– 28–31 days
28.3
filter (ANIF, inertial filter dp50 = 70 nm) 2.1, 0.65–1.1, 0.43–0.65, 0.07–0.43, < 0.43) (1 month)

Fluoranthene (Flu), Pyrene (Pyr), Benz[a]anthracene (BaA),
Chrysene (Chr), Benzo[e]pyrene (BeP), Benzo[a]pyrene
(BaP), Benzo[b] fluoranthene (BbF), Benzo[k]fluoranthene
(BkF), Dibenz[a,h]anthracene (DbA), Indeno[1,2,3-cd]pyrene
(IDP), and Benzo[ghi] perylene (BghiPe) were analyzed by
HPLC (HITACHI/L-2130/2200/2300/2485) using a
fluorescence detector and an Inertsil ODS-P column (5 µm,
3.0 mm diameter, 250 mm length) + acetonitrile/ultra-pure
water mobile phase, after ultrasonically dissolving the
samples on the filter in an ethanol/benzene (1:3) solution,
followed by evaporation on a rotary vacuum evaporator
(Toriba et al., 2003). The average recovery efficiency for
the 16 components was confirmed to be 0.82 ± 0.12 (n = 3)
by adding a standard reagent (Accustandard 0.2 mg/mL in
CH2Cl2:MeOH (1:1)) to the samples (Tang et al., 2005).
The average blank value of the filters was 8.5 ± 5 pg/cm2
for 2-3 ring PAHs and 5.5 ± 5 pg/cm2 for 4–6 ring PAHs.
These blank values were significantly less than the
concentrations of each compound in all samples analyzed.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Separation Performance of the Sampler
In Fig. 4, the collection efficiency curves for the inertial
filter are compared with NSs with inertial filters of dp50
showing 70 (Furuuchi et al., 2010a) and 100 nm
(KANOMAX, 2011), impactor of MOUDI (MSP) and
PENS (Tsai et al., 2012) respectively. The sharpness of the
classification curve was evaluated, as shown in Fig. 4 by
following the definition of the factor σ of Tsai et al. (2012)
d p 84
 (1)
d p16
where dp84 and dp16 is the aerodynamic diameter at collection
efficiencies of 84 and 16%, respectively. The designed
cutoff size of the inertial filter for the ANIF was dp50 ~70
nm. The collection efficiency curve of the inertial filter for
the ANIF was very similar to that of the NS (dp50 ~70 nm, σ
= 1.6). The sharpness of the inertial filter was better than
that of the commercial NS of KANOMAX (dp50 ~95 nm, σ
= 1.9) and worse than that of either the PENS (dp50 ~100
nm, σ = 1.3) or the MOUDI (dp50 ~100 nm, σ = 1.2).
Fig. 5 shows the collection efficiency curves for all stages
of the ANIF, where the efficiency curves for impactor
stages are from a literature (Vaughan, 2003). The pressure
drop through the inertial filter for the ANIF was 22–25 kPa
 Hata et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 1041–1048, 2012
100
Collection efficiency E (%)
50
0
0.1 0.01 1 10
Aerodynamic diameter (m)
Fig. 4. Collection efficiency curves of the inertial filters for ANIF comparing with other nanoparticle separators.
100
Collection efficiency E (%)
Inertial
filter
50
0
0.01
Fig. 5. Collection efficiency curves of the impactor stages and inertial filter (dp50 ~70 nm).
at a flow rate of 28.3 L/min, corresponding to the filtration
velocity of 30 m/s. This is almost equal to that of the NS
with a dp50 = 70 nm (Furuuchi et al., 2010a, ~25 kPa). The
total pressure drop of ~30 kPa through the impactor stages,
the nozzle stage, and through the inertial filter and a backup
filter was much less than with either an LPI (70–80 kPa) or
a nano-MOUDI (~60 kPa) with a 60–70 nm cutoff size.
However, the pressure drop was even less with nanoparticle
separators, which have a larger cutoff size, such as with a
personal sampling device with a two-stage inertial filter
(Furuuchi et al., 2010b, dp50 ~140 nm with 5.7 kPa) or with
a PENS (Tsai et al., 2012, dp50 ~100 nm with 14.1 kPa.
Although the performance of the normal pump for the
Andersen cascade impactor was insufficient to operate the
ANIF with a dp50 = 70 nm, it can be applied to one with the
inertial filters with a cutoff size of dp50 = 100 nm at a total
pressure drop of less than 25 kPa. Hence, users need not
replace any facilities for nano-particle collection.
1045
0.01m, =1.2
th
9 stage of MOUDI(MSP model110)
0.01m, =1.3
PENS(Tsai et al., 2012)
0.095m, =1.9
NS(KANOMAX Model3180)
0.065m, =1.6
NS(Furuuchi et al., 2010)
ANIF(This study)
Andersen Cascade Impactor (by Manufacturer)
0.1 1 10 100
Aerodynamic diameter (m)
Ambient Particles
The cumulative size distributions on a mass basis obtained
by the ANIF, the LPI and the NSs are compared in Fig. 6. In
general, a good agreement existed in the cumulative fraction
between the different samplers, but there was a slight
difference in the mass fractions of the nanoparticles with
sizes of less than 0.1 μm. This can be attributed to the loss of
semi-volatile components, such as nitrates, by evaporation,
due to the large pressure drop in the case of LPI.
The concentrations of nano-particles, the mass fractions
of nano-particles to the total particle mass, and the
concentrations of 4–6 ring PAHs and ions in the nano-
particles are compared in Fig. 7. The concentration and
mass fractions of chemicals evaluated for samples from the
ANIF and the NS were rather similar while those from the
LPI were much less than the others. This difference was too
large to be described only by the difference in the particle
diameters. Hence, this may be attributed to the large pressure
1046 Hata et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 1041–1048, 2012

99.99
ANIF(N=13)

Cumulative mass fraction (%)

99.9
LPI(N=11)
99.5
99 NS(N=76, KANOMAX)
98 NS(N=76, Furuuchi et al.)
95
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
5
2
1
0.5
0.1
0.01
0.1 1 10
Aerodynamic diameter (m)
Fig. 6. Ambient particle size distribution sampled by the Andersen sampler with an inertial filter (ANIF), two Nanosamplers
(NS) and a low-pressure impactor (LPI).

0.1 0.25
PAHs concentration(ng/m3)

PAHs mass fraction (ng/g)

5-6rings 5-6rings
0.2
4rings 4rings
0.15
0.05
0.1

0.05

0 0
LPI NS ANIF LPI NS ANIF
PM0.06 PM0.07 PM0.07 PM0.06 PM0.07 PM0.07
(a) 4–6 rings PAHs concentration (b) 4–6 rings PAHs concentration
0.5 0.02
Ion concentration(μg/m3)

Ion concentration(μg/m3)

SO42‐ NO3-
0.4 0.015
0.3
0.01
0.2

0.1 0.005

0 0
NS NS ANIF LPI NS NS ANIF LPI
PM0.1 PM0.07 PM0.07 PM0.06 PM0.1 PM0.07 PM0.07 PM0.06
(c) Sulfate ion concentration (d) Nitrate ion concentration
Fig. 7. Concentration of particle-bound PAHs and ions in ambient particles collected simultaneously by ANIF, NS and
LPI.

drop in the LPI, although evaporation loss of ions cannot This paper describes the design and performance of an
describe the total difference in the particle mass. These ambient air sampler that consists of an Andersen cascade
results show that there is a clear advantage of the ANIF and impactor that uses inertial filter technology in a supplemental
NS for the evaluation of semi-volatile chemicals. stage to separate nano-particles smaller than 70 nm.
The designed inertial filter had an aerodynamic cutoff
CONCLUSIONS size of dp50 ~70 nm with a classification sharpness σ = 1.6,
 Hata et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 1041–1048, 2012
which was similar to the reported inertial filter (Furuuchi et
al., 2010a). The total pressure drop of the developed device
(the ANIF) and its inertial filter with a cutoff size of dp50
~70 nm from the sampler inlet to the backup filter was ~30
kPa at a flow rate of 28.3 L/min. This pressure drop allows
the use of conventional pumps that are currently available
on the market. A smaller total pressure drop of ~20 kPa of
the ANIF may be available for a dp50 = 100 nm of the
inertial filter, which would also allow the use of a normal
pump for the Andersen sampler. As a result, the ANIF has
advantages over currently available samplers such as the
LPI and the nano-MOUDI — less loss of semi-volatile
components in ultrafine particles by evaporation at reduced
pressure and a reduced cost to prepare a sampler capable of
testing nano-particles.
The size distributions of ambient particles measured
with the ANIF compared favorably with those measured
using conventional instruments that are currently available
on the market, as well as with the performance of the NS
and the LPI. When compared with LPI, the ANIF showed
much less evaporation of semi-volatile components, which
obviously allows for a more accurate evaluation of them.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The authors gratefully acknowledge Mr. Takashita and
Mr. Tanii for the their great effort in the sampling of
ambient particles.
REFERENCES
Bolch, W.E., Farfán, E.B, Huh, C., Huston, T.E. and Bolch,
W.E. (2001). Influence of Parameter Uncertainties within
the ICRP 66 Respiratory Tract Model: Particle Deposition.
Health Phys. 81:378–394.
Eryu, K., Seto, T., Mizukami, Y., Nagura, M., Furuuchi,
M., Tajima, Y., Kato, T., Ehara, K. and Otani, Y. (2009).
Design of Inertial Filter for Classification of PM0.1. J.
Aerosol Res. 24: 24–29. (in Japanese).
Fang, C.I., McMurry, P.H., Marple, V.A. and Rubow, K.L.
(1991). Effect of Flow-induced Relative Humidity
Changes on Size Cuts for Sulfuric Acid Droplets in the
MOUDI. Aerosol Sci. Technol. 14: 266–277.
Furuuchi, M., Choosong, T., Tekasakul, P., Yoshikawa, F.,
Tekasakul, S., Hata, M. and Otani, Y. (2007). Worker's
Exposure to Nano Smoke Particles from Wood Burning
in a Rubber Sheet Smoking Factrory, Proc. the 3rd
International Symposium on Nanotechnology,
Occupational and Environmental Health, Taipei, Taiwan,
p. 304–305.
Furuuchi, M., Eryu, K., Nagura, M., Hata, M., Kato, T.,
Tajima, N., Sekiguchi, K., Ehara, K., Seto, T. and Otani,
Y. (2010a). Development and Performance Evaluation of
Air Sampler with Inertial Filter for Nanopartilce
Sampling. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 10: 185–192.
Furuuchi, M., Choosong, T., Hata, M., Otani, Y., Tekasakul,
P., Takizawa, M. and Nagura, M. (2010b). Development
of a Personal Sampler for Evaluating Exposure to
Ultrafine Particles. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 10: 30–37.
1047
Hata, M., Bai, Y., Furuuchi, M., Fukumoto, M., Otani, Y.,
Sekiguchi, K. and Tajima, N. (2009a). Status and
Characteristics of Ambient Aerosol Nano-particles in
Kakuma, Kanazawa and Comparison between Sampling
Characteristics of Air Samplers for Aerosol Particle
Separation. Bull. Japan Sea Res. Inst. Kanazawa Univ.
40: 135–140. (in Japanese)
Hata, M., Furuuchi, M., Fukumoto, M., Otani, Y., Sekiguchi,
K., Tajima, N. and Bai, Y. (2009b). Characteristics of
Ultra-fine and Fine Particles in Road Tunnel. Proc. 6th
Asian Aerosol Conference (AAC2009), Bangkok, Nov.
24–27, AF-06.
Hering, S.V., Flagan, R.C. and Fliedlander, S.K. (1978a).
Design and Evaluation of New Low-Pressure Impactor.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 12: 667–673.
Hering, S.V., Fliedlander, S.K., Collins, J.J. and Richards,
L.W. (1978b). Design and Evaluation of a New Low-
Pressure Impactor 2. Environ. Sci. Technol. 13: 184–188.
Hinds, W.C. (1999). Aerosol Technology, 2nd ed., Wiley-
Interscience, New York.
KANOMAX, Nanosampler Model 3180. (2012).
http://www.kanomax.co.jp/products/1103.html
Kauppinen, E.I. and Hillamo, R.E. (1989). Modification of
the University of Washington Mark 5 in-stack Impactor.
J. Aerosol Sci. 20: 813–827.
Knutdon, E.O. and Whitby, K.T. (1975). Aerosol
Classification by Electric Mobility: Apparatus, Theory,
and Application. J. Aerosol Sci. 6: 443–451.
Mahler, G.J., Esch, M.B., Tako, E., Southard, T.L., Archer,
S.D., Glahn R.P. and Shuler, M.L. (2012). Oral Exposure
to Polystyrene Nanoparticles Affects Iron Absorption.
Nat. Nanotechnol. 7: 264–271.
Mayland, A.D. and Pui, D.Y.H. (2007). Nanoparticles and
Occupational Health, Splinger. Dordrecht.
MSP (2012). http://www.mspcorp.com/products-
detail.php/aerosol/model-m120122125-moudiii-
impactors.
Ono-Ogasawara, M., Myojo, T. and Kobayashi, S. (2009). A
Nanoparticle Sampler Incorporating Differential Mobility
Analyzers and Its Application at a Road-Side near Heavy
Traffic in Kawasaki, Japan. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 9:
290–304.
Otani, Y., Eryu, K., Furuuchi, M., Tajima, N. and Tekasakul,
P. (2007). Inertial Classification of Nanoparticles with
Fibrous Filters. Aerosol Air Qual. Res. 7: 343–352.
Semmler-Behnke, M., Kreyling, W.G., Schulz, H., Takenaka,
S., Butler, J.P., Henry, F.S. and Tsuda, A. (2012).
Nanoparticle Delivery in Infant Lungs. Proc. Nat. Acad.
Sci. U.S.A. 109: 5092–5097.
Spurny, K.R. (1999). Analytical Chemistry of Aerosols,
Lewis, Boca Raton.
Tang, N., Hattori, T., Taga, R., Igarashi, K., Yang, X.,
Tamura, K., Kakimoto, H., Mishukov, V.F., Toriba, A.,
Kizu, R. and Hayakawa, K. (2005). Polycyclic Aromatic
Hydrocarbons and Nitropolycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
in Urban Air Particulates and Their Relationship to
Emission Sources in the Pan-Japan Sea Countries. Atmos.
Environ. 39: 5817–5826.
Toriba, A., Kuramae, Y., Chetiyanukornkul, T., Kizu, R.,
1048 Hata et al., Aerosol and Air Quality Research, 12: 1041–1048, 2012
Makino, T., Nakazawa, H. and Hayakawa, K. (2003).
Quantification of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons
(PAHs) in Human Hair by HPLC with Fluorescence
Detection: A Biological Monitoring Method to Evaluate
the Exposure to PAHs. Biomed. Chromatogr. 17: 126–
132.
Tsai, C.J., Liu, C.N., Hung, SM., Chen, S.C., Uang, S.N.,
Cheng, Y.S. and Zhou, Y. (2012). Novel Active Personal
Nanoparticle Sampler for the Exposure Assessment of
Nanoparticles in Workplaces. Environ. Sci. Technol. 46:
4546–4552.
Vaughan, N.P. (2003). The Andersen Impactor: Calibration,
Wall Losses and Numerical Simulation. J. Aerosol Sci.
20: 67–90.
Received for review, May 2, 2012
Accepted, August 4, 2012