Mist Control at a Machining Center, Part 1: Mist Characterization

Heitbrink, William A.; Yacher, John M.; Deye, Gregory J.; Spencer, Amy Beasley

doi:10.1202/0002-8894(2000)061<0275:mcaamc>2.0.co;2

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This type of machining has high spindle speeds and some of the deepest cuts and highest fluid pressures, and our results validate other studies that investigated these factors. (57)(58)(59) Both the personal and area sampling results indicate that better and more consistent control of the mist is occurring on the new line with the more complete enclosures. Although lower exposures were anticipated with more complete enclosures, the ability of the complete enclosure design to more effectively and consistently maintain exposures below 0.5 mg/m 3 allows the employer to meet the recommendations of NIOSH (6) and OSHA MWF Standards Advisory Committee (3) and agreements with their union employees.…”

Section: Discussion Of the Main Study: Comparison Of Transfer Linesmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The grid method used in this study may also explain some of the difference when compared with other studies using direct-reading instruments. (48,65,79) Factors such as spindle speed, (57,58) feed rate and depth of cut, (57) and pressure of applied fluid, (58,59) are not issues in the comparison of the old line vs. the new line, since the same machining processes are used in each line; however, these factors do become apparent when observing the areas with higher mist levels in each line as seen in Figure 2. In the area around OP 20, the highest area sampling values were found in areas around machining processes, such as gun drilling.…”

Section: Discussion Of the Main Study: Comparison Of Transfer Linesmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…The proximity of the tool to the part during machining is an important factor for mist production. (59) Depending on the position of the idle tool relative to the part, some operations may be producing more or less mist when the operation is down. With some tool designs and part positions, a limited enclosure may be produced by the tool contacting the part during machining.…”

Section: Downtime-machining Off/mwf On Versus Machining Off/mwf Offmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Various studies indicate some of the important factors that influence mist generation, including tool spindle speed; (57,58) size and location of the workpiece; (57) speed, feed rate, and depth of cut; (57) pressure of the applied fluid; (58,59) and the proximity of the tool to the part. (59) Due to the complexity of the metalworking fluid environment, a comprehensive systems approach using a combination of fluid management and effective engineering controls has received widespread acceptance. (3,4,6,53,60) The ANSI Technical Report entitled Mist Control Considerations for the Design, Installation and Use of Machine Tools using Metalworking Fluids (60) is the definitive guide for designing enclosures and duct systems to reduce exposures.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…(53−58) The type of MWF being used, the presence or absence of additives to reduce misting, the type of machining operations being performed, and the amount of general and local exhaust ventilation employed at the facility all affect the amount of MWF mist generated and released into the employee's breathing zone. Various studies indicate some of the important factors that influence mist generation, including tool spindle speed; (57,58) size and location of the workpiece; (57) speed, feed rate, and depth of cut; (57) pressure of the applied fluid; (58,59) and the proximity of the tool to the part. (59) Due to the complexity of the metalworking fluid environment, a comprehensive systems approach using a combination of fluid management and effective engineering controls has received widespread acceptance.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Metalworking Fluid Mist—Strategies to Reduce Exposure: A Comparison of New and Old Transmission Case Transfer Lines

Sheehan

Hands

2007

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three studies were performed to assess the effectiveness of various techniques to control metalworking fluid (MWF) mist. The studies consisted of a detailed main study that determined the effect of degree of enclosure on personal exposures and area concentrations of MWF mist on two machining transfer lines. One ancillary study was conducted to determine the effect of shutting off MWF delivery during down time; the second ancillary study investigated the effectiveness of improved retrofitted enclosure. In the main study, the two operations were identical except for degree of enclosure. Personal and area sampling results for the new line were about half those found in the old line. Measurements at the new operation exhibited significantly less variability. Personal exposures and area concentrations were significantly less at the new operation than at the older, less enclosed operation, demonstrating that the total enclosure in the new operation provides better and more consistent control of the mist. The first ancillary study was conducted to determine if shutting off MWF delivery to the parts being machined reduced area MWF mist concentration during downtime at a partially enclosed transfer machining line. A significant reduction in concentration of 80% was measured with machining off/MWF off. Mist concentrations measured with machining off/MWF on were not significantly different from mist levels measured during machining on/MWF on. The second ancillary study investigated the reduction of mist concentration achieved through improved enclosure of an existing set of machines. Area mist concentrations were measured at a machining operation before and after the installation of an improved enclosure. Area mist concentrations were reduced by 87% with the improved enclosure.

show abstract

Section: Discussion Of the Main Study: Comparison Of Transfer Linesmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Discussion Of the Main Study: Comparison Of Transfer Linesmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Downtime-machining Off/mwf On Versus Machining Off/mwf Offmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Metalworking Fluid Mist—Strategies to Reduce Exposure: A Comparison of New and Old Transmission Case Transfer Lines

Sheehan

Hands

2007

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Size distributions and exposure concentrations of nanoparticles associated with the emissions of oil mists from fastener manufacturing processes

Wang

Tsai

Chen

et al. 2011

Journal of Hazardous Materials

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An evaluation of the “GGP” personal samplers under semi-volatile aerosols: sampling losses and their implication on occupational risk assessment

Dragan

Breuer

Blaskowitz

et al. 2015

Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semi-volatile (SV) aerosols still represent an important challenge to occupational hygienists due to toxicological and sampling issues. Particularly problematic is the sampling of hazardous SV that are present in both particulate and vapour phases at a workplace. In this study we investigate the potential evaporation losses of SV aerosols when using off-line filter-adsorber personal samplers. Furthermore, we provide experimental data showing the extent of the evaporation loss that can bias the workplace risk assessment. An experimental apparatus consisting of an aerosol generator, a flow tube and an aerosol monitoring and sampling system was set up inside a temperature controlled chamber. Aerosols from three n-alkanes were generated, diluted with nitrogen and sampled using on-line and off-line filter-adsorber methods. Parallel measurements using the on-line and off-line methods were conducted to quantify the bias induced by filter sampling. Additionally, two mineral oils of different volatility were spiked on filters and monitored for evaporation depending on the samplers flow rate. No significant differences between the on-line and off-line methods were detected for the sum of particles and vapour. The filter-adsorber method however tended to underestimate up to 100% of the particle mass, especially for the more volatile compounds and lower concentrations. The off-line sampling method systematically returned lower particle and higher vapour values, an indication for particle evaporation losses. We conclude that using only filter sampling for the assessment of semi-volatiles may considerably underestimate the presence of the particulate phase due to evaporation. Thus, this underestimation can have a negative impact on the occupational risk assessment if the evaporated particle mass is no longer quantified.

show abstract

Mist Control at a Machining Center, Part 1: Mist Characterization

Cited by 11 publications

References 0 publications

Metalworking Fluid Mist—Strategies to Reduce Exposure: A Comparison of New and Old Transmission Case Transfer Lines

Metalworking Fluid Mist—Strategies to Reduce Exposure: A Comparison of New and Old Transmission Case Transfer Lines

Size distributions and exposure concentrations of nanoparticles associated with the emissions of oil mists from fastener manufacturing processes

An evaluation of the “GGP” personal samplers under semi-volatile aerosols: sampling losses and their implication on occupational risk assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About