Without measurement there is no control

A Practical Guide to Aerosol Particle Counter Matching

Introduction
A common question related to aerosol particle counters is how well particle counting results should match each
other. An example of when this becomes important is new particle counters being added to an existing fleet. The
new instruments could be supplied from the original manufacturer or from a new vendor. Even when the particle
counters are supplied by the same manufacturer, it is not uncommon for different models to be purchased
because of improved specifications or product obsolescence. All of these considerations are important because
they can impact the resulting particle count data. The purpose of this short application note is to provide a
practical guide for the expectations one should have when comparing particle count data from similar and
dissimilar instruments.
There are three common cases that provoke questions about data agreement between two aerosol optical
particle counters:

• Group 1: Same instruments from the same manufacturer

• Group 2: Like instruments from different manufacturers*
• Group 3: Unlike instruments from same or different manufacturer

*The term “Like” refers to particle counters having the same key specifications of first channel sensitivity, sample flow rate and the
number (and value) of size channels (indicative of resolution).

Relative Data Comparisons and Contamination Trending

A reasonable expectation is that all aerosol optical particle counters falling into Groups 1 and 2 should provide
similar relative particle trend data over time. Specifically, the data that can be compared is cumulative,
normalized counts. All of the common particle trend profiles should compare well, including periods when
counts are stable, periodic/irregular particle events, as well as the presence of a clean-up curve for significant
upsets. Large offsets in the data (up to a factor of 2 or more) can be tolerated, especially in the lower ISO classes,
because steady-state particle levels are generally so much lower than action levels or limits for a particular
environment.
Best practices suggest avoiding Group 3 for even relative data comparison because there are simply too many
variables associated with the instrumentation that can lead to differences in the particle count data. Although
this conclusion seems obvious, it is worth mentioning here because it does happen in the real world and these
comparisons should be avoided.

Absolute Data Comparisons

Absolute comparisons of data are sometimes necessary, and care must be used when setting expectations
for how well particle data from different instruments match. The three categories of factors that impact data
matching between aerosol particle counters are summarized in the following table.

info@pmeasuring.com | +1 800 238 1801 Page 1 of 3

 A Practical Guide to Aerosol Particle Counter Matching

FACTORS AFFECTING INSTRUMENT MATCHING

Instrument Factors
Laser design (power, wavelength)
Laser and beam shaping
Optical detection and signal
processing
Sample cell design and flow delivery
Calibration Factors
PSL size and distribution
PSL nebulization and delivery method
Reference instrument / calibration
equipment and apparatus
Calibration methodology
“How Used” Factors
Sampling location and technique
Sample interval
Availability of statistically significant number of
particles per channel
Measurement of environment particles vs PSLs

For Group 1
The reason Group 1 offers the best chances for close agreement for cumulative and differential data
agreement across a pool of many instruments that may have been manufactured at different times is because
data differences resulting from instrument and calibration factors have been for the most part eliminated.
Manufacturing consistency and quality control are the only limiting factors. It is assumed the “how used” factors
can be minimized by taking care with how and where the aerosol samples are collected. However, even in this
best-case scenario, it is impossible for two particle counters to count exactly the same and some variation in
sample data will exist.

For Group 2
Absolute data comparisons are complicated primarily due to the differences in the designs between
manufacturers of optical particle counters. For example, “like” instruments will perform differently even though
they have the same key specifications. They will count and size particles differently because of design choices
for the laser type and beam shaping in the sample region, optical detection and signal processing approach, and
sample cell and flow delivery (including recirculation). The cumulative impact of these factors for instruments
produced by different manufacturers results in differences in the cumulative and differential data they produce.
Calibration factors are also a reality that affect data matching between like instruments produced by different
manufactures. There are a variety of suppliers for the materials used to calibrate an optical particle counter. These
monodisperse particles have different mean sizes and size distributions. It is common for specific part numbers
from the same manufacturer to have specification differences batch to batch. Next, the method to deliver the
particles during the calibration can be a source of error. Particles must be free from contamination and delivered
in the correct concentration when setting channel thresholds. Finally, the type of reference instrument used to
calibrate the instrument under test will have an impact on its counting performance.
In addition, the number of size channels and resolution that an instrument provides will also have an effect on
data matching. More channels equal additional areas of variation; likewise, a small change in sizing will have a
much greater effect on an instrument with higher resolution. An additional point worth mentioning is that “splits”
is a common approach used to set a particle counter’s inner channel size threshold during calibration. Adjusting
and setting a size threshold to match the median of the monodisperse particle challenge in adjacent channels
is not an exact science and there are many variables associated with this calibration step. The cumulative error
pertaining to calibration factors can be significant and does contribute to data mismatch between like particle
counters.

info@pmeasuring.com | +1 800 238 1801 Page 2 of 3

 A Practical Guide to Aerosol Particle Counter Matching

For Group 3
There should be no expectation of any data agreement for instruments falling into this category because the
instrument design and its calibration process are completely different. The differences in sensitivity of instruments
in this group affect cumulative counts and the ability to determine comparative accuracy in polydisperse aerosol
distributions (i.e. actual sampling of an environment with particles of varying sizes).

Guidelines for Matching Expectations

Based on the discussion above, the following data matching expectations are recommended. Only cumulative
counts should be considered; differential count data should be avoided due to the reasons detailed in the
following table. The test environment must contain a statistically meaningful concentration of particles to be able
to draw a conclusion with any level of confidence.

GROUP TYPE COMPARISON TYPICAL COMMENTS

RESULTS
1 Same instruments from same First channel cumulative ± 20% Best case scenario. The expectation should be
manufacturer Inter-channel ± 50% that data between old and new instruments
comparison of will compare well. Instrument factors and
cumulative counts calibration factors should not be a major source
of error. Make sure the sampling procedure and
sample probe placement is consistent.
2 Like instruments from different First channel cumulative ± 40% Instrument and calibration factors dominate.
manufacturers Inter-channel ± 100% First channel comparisons are reasonable and
comparison of generally provide acceptable results but allow
cumulative counts for a larger absolute difference in cumulative
counts. Inter-channel comparisons are possible,
but errors will be larger.
3 Unalike instruments from either Any data comparison Unable to Comparisons like this should be avoided.
same or different manufacturer estimate

Summary
Care must be used when attempting to compare data between aerosol optical particle counters. As a general rule
of thumb, the same models from the same manufacturer will produce the best data matching under equivalent
sampling conditions. Differences in cumulative and differential data from "like" instruments should always be
expected. These baseline shifts in the particle count data can generally be tolerated because it is consistent over
time so expectations can be reset. If comparisons between like instruments must be made, the total normalized
cumulative counts are the suggested data to use. It is reasonable to expect a larger difference in inter-channel
cumulative and differential data for like instruments. Finally, comparison of particle data for unalike instruments
from the same or different manufacturers should always be avoided due to differences caused by instrument and
calibration factors.

Visit our website for Aerosol Particle Counters

Check out Particle Measuring Systems on

© 2020 Particle Measuring Systems. All rights reserved. Reproduction or translation of any part of this work without the permission of the copyright owner is unlawful. Requests for permission or further information should be addressed to Particle
Measuring Systems, Inc. at 1-800-238-1801. App Note 296 01.2021

info@pmeasuring.com | +1 800 238 1801 Page 3 of 3