Date of Award


Document Type


Degree Name

Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)


Safety Sciences

First Advisor

Christopher Janicak, Ph.D., CSP, CEA, ARM

Second Advisor

Tracey Cekada, D.Sc., CSP

Third Advisor

Lon Ferguson, Ed.D., CSP, CFPS


Introduction: The sampling of elemental carbon has been associated with monitoring exposures in the trucking and mining industries. Recently, in the field of engineered nanomaterials, single wall and muti-wall carbon nanotubes (MWCNTs) are being produced in ever increasing quantities. The only approved atmospheric sampling for multi-wall carbon nanotubes in NIOSH Method 5040. These results are accurate but can take up to 30 days for sample results to be received.

Objectives: Compare the results of elemental carbon sampling from the NIOSH Method 5040 to a Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Meter.

Methods: MWCNTs were transferred and weighed between several trays placed on a scale. The NIOSH Method 5040 and DPM sampling train was hung 6 inches above the receiving tray. The transferring and weighing of the MWCNTs created an aerosol containing elemental carbon. Twenty-one total samples using both meters type were collected.

Results: The assumptions for a Two-Way ANOVA were violated therefore, Mann-Whitney U Tests and a Kruskal-Wallis Test were performed. The hypotheses for both research questions were rejected. There was a significant difference in the EC concentrations obtained by the NIOSH Method 5040 and the DPM meter. There were also significant differences in elemental carbon level concentrations when sampled using a DPM meter versus a sampling pump based upon the three concentration levels (low, medium and high).

Conclusions: The differences in the EC concentrations were statistically significant therefore, the two methods (NIOSH Method 5040 and DPM) are not the same. The NIOSH Method 5040 should continue to be the only authorized method of establishing an EC concentration for MWCNTs until a MWCNT specific method or an instantaneous meter is invented.