Performance evaluation of disposable inhalable aerosol sampler at a copper electrorefinery

Abstract

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.

Review of Workplace Based Aerosol Sampler Comparison Studies, 2004–2020

“…Only one article was identified for copper dust sampling [ 45 ]. This article compared a disposable version of the original IOM head (sampler is referred to as a disposable inhalable aerosol sampler (DIAS)) that had been developed with an IOM sampler for the inhalable fraction in a copper electro refinery at a flow rate of 2.0 L min −1 .…”

“…Lee et al [ 49 ] also identified that using a customized insert in a cellulosic sampler may not be appropriate for gravimetric analysis due to changes in humidity and mass variabilities. Potential errors from the wiping process of the samplers has been highlighted by Lee et al [ 45 ] such as an inconsistent pressure being applied for wiping the cap inside and internal walls. The sampler location has been noted by Lee et al [ 35 ] as a potential issue with one sampler (CFC) moving position during the sampling process, from the opener facing a 45 degree angle to the vertical at the beginning to being observed to be pointing face outward from the body at the end of the sampling.…”

“…The contribution of wall deposits has only been considered in a limited number of studies. The inclusion of wall deposits has been taken into account for the sampled mass in studies such as Lee et al [ 45 ] where the internal walls were wiped and the mass of the wipes include and Anthony et al [ 30 ], where an internal capsule was used to collect wall deposits for a prototype sampler. A number of studies have mentioned wall deposits; however, they have not included the contribution of wall deposits in the results [ 36 , 39 ] A number of studies include no discussion on wall deposits.…”

Recent Advances in Occupational Exposure Assessment of Aerosols

“…In addition, after sample collection, if the collection substrate is transported while mounted in the sampler, it is possible that particles originally deposited on the collection substrate may dislodge during transportation. Such particles can thereby contribute to deposits on the walls, as well as on the base of any cover plate or plug [19]. All particles found elsewhere than on or in the collection substrate are often loosely termed "wall deposits".…”

“…Copper smelter [25] 18 Cu 21% 55% Lead ore mill [26] 9 Pb 19% 35% Solder manufacture [27] 30 Pb 29% 74% Battery production [20] 16 Pb 28% 66% Battery recycling [26] 54 Pb 29% 54% Welding [28] 10 Cr(VI) 5% 55% Plating [28] 12 Cr(VI) 12% 17% Paint spray [28] 29 Cr(VI) 7% 12% Zn foundry [20] 9 Zn 53% 62% Zn plating [20] 18 Zn 27% 91% Cast iron foundry [20] 18 Fe 22% 46% Grey iron foundry [20] 18 Fe 24% 77% Bronze foundry [29] 6 Cu, Pb, Zn 19%, 13%, 15% 45%, 17%, 21% Cuproberyllium alloying [20] 4 Cu, Be 31%, 12% 40%, 39% Solder manufacturer [30] 50 Pb 45% 77% Solder manufacturer [30] 47 Sn 56% 93% [25] 17 Cu 16% 38% Copper refinery [19] 48 Cu 18% 36% Battery production [31] 11 Pb 8% 33% Welding [31] 18 Al 3% 13% Cast iron foundry [20] 18 Fe 8% 69% Grey iron foundry [20] 18 Fe 5% 16% Bronze foundry [29] 6 Cu, Pb, Sn, Zn 0%, 0%, 0%, 3% 10%, 3%, 23%, 6%…”