Differences Between Samplers for Respirable Dust and the Analysis of Quartz—An International Study

Harper

Kashon

et al. 2015

ANNHYG

High and low flow rate respirable size selective samplers including the CIP10-R (10 l min−1), FSP10 (11.2 l min−1), GK2.69 (4.4 l min−1), 10-mm nylon (1.7 l min−1), and Higgins-Dewell type (2.2 l min−1) were compared via side-by-side sampling in workplaces for respirable crystalline silica measurement. Sampling was conducted at eight different occupational sites in the USA and five different stonemasonry sites in Ireland. A total of 536 (268 pairs) personal samples and 55 area samples were collected. Gravimetric analysis was used to determine respirable dust mass and X-ray diffraction analysis was used to determine quartz mass. Ratios of respirable dust mass concentration, quartz mass concentration, respirable dust mass, and quartz mass from high and low flow rate samplers were compared. In general, samplers did not show significant differences greater than 30% in respirable dust mass concentration and quartz mass concentration when outliers (ratio <0.3 or >3.0) were removed from the analysis. The frequency of samples above the limit of detection and limit of quantification of quartz was significantly higher for the CIP10-R and FSP10 samplers compared to low flow rate samplers, while the GK2.69 cyclone did not show significant difference from low flow rate samplers. High flow rate samplers collected significantly more respirable dust and quartz than low flow rate samplers as expected indicating that utilizing high flow rate samplers might improve precision in quartz measurement. Although the samplers did not show significant differences in respirable dust and quartz concentrations, other practical attributes might make them more or less suitable for personal sampling.

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 82%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Silica Measurement with High Flow Rate Respirable Size Selective Samplers: A Field Study

Harper

Kashon

et al. 2015

ANNHYG

“…Demange et al (2002) investigated metal deposits on sampling cassette walls due to transportation disturbances and reported that 1.8% of the sampled mass of barium and 7.9% of the sampled mass of iron were deposited on cassette walls during transportation. On the other hand, Stacey et al (2013) also checked the weight of respirable dust on 12 filter samples after transporting to Italy and South Africa from the UK but reported no significant differences (the ratio close to 1). Although the methods to determine particle losses due to the transportation were different between the present study and a study by Demange et al, it is obvious that the loss of particles could happen from the transportation of samples.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Performance evaluation of disposable inhalable aerosol sampler at a copper electrorefinery

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

Grimson

Chisholm

et al. 2019

The performance of the disposable inhalable aerosol sampler (DIAS), newly developed to be cost-effective and comparable to the inhalable particle sampling convention, was evaluated. Forty-eight sets of copper exposure measurements (23 personal and 25 area) with pairs of the DIAS prototypes and the IOM inhalable samplers were collected at an electrorefinery facility. For the combined data (personal and area), the geometric mean (GM) concentrations of copper were 36.1 μg m−3 (range of 0.8 – 337.7 μg m−3) for the DIAS prototype and 26.5 μg m−3 (range of 5.1 – 760.8 μg m−3) for the IOM sampler. The GM ratio of exposure measurements (DIAS/IOM) was 1.4 revealing ~ 81% of the ratios greater than the unit ratio. The concordance correlation coefficient tests revealed significant disagreement between the two types of samplers and suggested precision as the source of the disagreement. For the personal, area and combined data, no linear relationships were observed between the DIAS and IOM (all p-values < 0.05). In addition, the estimated average concentrations were always higher for the DIAS compared to the IOM for the combined and area exposure data (p-values < 0.05) and comparable for the personal exposure data (p-value = 0.487). Overall, regardless of the sampling method (i.e., personal and area), the DIAS generated higher exposure measurements compared to the IOM sampler. The present study is limited to one metal component (copper) of the dust at a worksite. As far as we are concerned, this is only the second field evaluation of the DIAS. Thus, it is too early to draw a firm conclusion about the performance of the DIAS vis-à-vis the inhalable convention. Additional field evaluations covering various chemicals and worksites will be necessary. In addition, particle losses on the cap during transportation of collected samples to a laboratory were observed for both sampler types. Occupational professionals should be aware of potential errors caused from transferring samples from a field to a laboratory and should be careful not to exclude particles collected on the caps.

“…The experimental protocol used previously in a study of 13 respirable samplers ( Stacey et al , 2013 ) was again used in this work. These high flow rate samplers were exposed to ultrafine and medium ARD at different recommended flow rates.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Collection Efficiencies of High Flow Rate Personal Respirable Samplers When Measuring Arizona Road Dust and Analysis of Quartz by X-ray Diffraction

Stacey

The Annals of Occupational Hygiene

Thorpe

et al. 2014

Prolonged exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) causes silicosis and is also considered a cause of cancer. To meet emerging needs for precise measurements of RCS, from shorter sampling periods (<4h) and lower air concentrations, collaborative work was done to assess the differences between personal respirable samplers at higher flow rates. The performance of FSP10, GK2.69, and CIP 10 R samplers were compared with that of the Safety In Mines Personal Dust Sampler (SIMPEDS) sampler as a reference, which is commonly used in the UK for the measurement of RCS. In addition, the performance of the FSP10 and GK 2.69 samplers were compared; at the nominal flow rates recommended by the manufacturers of 10 and 4.2 l · min−1 and with flow rates proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of 11.2 and 4.4 l · min−1. Samplers were exposed to aerosols of ultrafine and medium grades of Arizona road dust (ARD) generated in a calm air chamber. All analyses for RCS in this study were performed at the Health and Safety Laboratory. The difference in flow rates for the GK2.69 is small and does not result in a substantial difference in collection efficiency for the dusts tested, while the performance of the FSP10 at 11.2 l · min−1 was more comparable with samples from the SIMPEDS. Conversely, the GK2.69 collected proportionately more crystalline silica in the respirable dust than other samplers, which then produced RCS results most comparable with the SIMPEDS. The CIP 10 R collected less ultrafine ARD than other samplers, as might be expected based on earlier performance evaluations. The higher flow rate for the FSP10 should be an added advantage for task-specific sampling or when measuring air concentrations less than current occupational exposure limits.