Techniques for Assessing “Removable” Surface Contamination

Royster, G.W.; Fish, B.R.

doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-011918-2.50031-7

Cited by 13 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A large number of samplers have been designed and employed in a range of configurations, to sample several types of particulate contaminants from a variety of surfaces. The smair sampler of Royster and Fish (1964) comprised a sampling head with a sampling area of 20 cm 2 , in which 24 holes were drilled at angles to facilitate an air intake. The impingment velocity of the air on the surface was 30 ms Ϫ1 .…”

Section: Materials Methods and Sampling Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contamination, dispersed by air impingement, is collected on a filter paper, as in a conventional air sampler. Full specifications for a smair sampler are presented in Royster and Fish (1964) and Wheeler and Stancliffe (1998).…”

Section: Sampling Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The use of suction methods for assessing surface contamination was first reported more than three decades ago (Royster and Fish, 1964), in the context of radioactive contamination measurement on surfaces. Since then, suction methods have been used and suggested for a variety of applications including the assessment of lead contamination levels on surfaces (Lioy et al, 1998), levels of allergenic particles on surfaces (Chew et al, 1999), and the general assessment of indoor dust loading, in the context of sick building syndrome (Franke et al, 1997).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Suction methods for assessing contamination on surfaces

Byrne

2000

The Annals of Occupational Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suction sampling techniques are widely used to assess particulate contamination levels on domestic and occupational surfaces such as floor coverings, but their use for dermal exposure assessment has, to date, been limited. This paper reviews the sampling techniques commonly employed and summarises the range of sampling efficiencies reported in the literature. As there are an extremely large number of key factors influencing the recovery efficiency of suction sampling devices, it is recommended that controlled experiments are carried out to evaluate the relative significance of these factors, thus allowing inter-comparison of the data generated in field studies. As the range of applications of suction sampling devices is extensive, the harmonisation of sampling protocols is not considered to be a feasible objective.

show abstract

Section: Materials Methods and Sampling Strategiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Sampling Principlesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Suction methods for assessing contamination on surfaces

Byrne

2000

The Annals of Occupational Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To obtain a more well-defined removal efficiency and improved reproducibility, geometry and air flow must be specified and fixed during vacuuming (Roberts et al, 1991;Schneider et al, 1992). Other sampling methods use well-defined jets of air (Royster and Fish, 1967;Kildesø et al, 2003) or simulate walking on carpets by a falling weight (Kildesø et al, 1999 b).…”

Section: Samplingmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Royster and Fish (1967) developed a simple instrument for measuring resuspension (Smair test, Fig. 2.3-5).…”

Section: Sampling Of Surface Dust In Buildings 93mentioning

confidence: 99%

Sampling of Surface Dust in Buildings

Schneider¹

2003

Indoor Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionSurfaces affect the indoor environment quality. By acting as sources and sinks for air contaminants they influence exposure of the room occupants. Moreover, surfaces and their contaminants affect the visual impression of the rooms. The degree to which the amount of surface dust affects the indoor environment needs to be assessed by quantitative measurements. This chapter begins with presenting a simple conceptual model including the compartments and transport processes that ultimately lead to exposure of room occupants by inhalation, ingestion, dermal uptake, or by visual perception. The model is then used to structure the presentation of measurement principles. Sources of variability in surface dust concentrations are listed that need to be known in order to design cost-effective sampling strategies. Finally, specific sampling methods are described. It has been the intention in this chapter to present key elements of surface dust sampling, which the investigator can use to design a sampling protocol for a particular task. For details of the quoted methods, the reader is referred to the original papers. Aspects of sampling that are specific for microorganisms, such as use of agar contact plates, are not covered.Surface contaminants may consist of dirt, loose dust, strongly adhering particles, and "greasy" matter, as well as adsorbed vapors. For simplicity, this entity will be termed dust, unless specified otherwise. 2.3.2 The ScenarioThe contribution of surface dust to the indoor environment quality can be viewed from different angles, defined by the question asked. Surface dust can be viewed, e.g., as:Reflecting what has been in the air averaged over the time period since the surface was cleaned. A secondary source of airborne particles if agitated. Indicating efficiency of last cleaning and recontamination rate. 82 2.3

show abstract

Occupational Dermal Exposure Assessment

Nylander‐French¹

2003

Patty's Industrial Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The skin is generally considered to be a good barrier to the systemic absorption of chemicals. However, many chemicals can partially or fully breach the skin where they may be metabolized, and interact with dermal macromolecules or components of the skin immune system, and then be systemically absorbed and distributed. Thus, dermal exposure to chemical substances can contribute significantly to the total systemic dose as well as result in acute or chronic skin toxicity and disease. Skin diseases related to occupational exposure are the second most prevalent type of occupational disease. From 1983 to 1994, occupational skin diseases increased by 26%. In 1994, approximately 66,000 cases were reported, which accounted for 13% of all occupational related disease. Since occupational skin diseases are believed to be severely under‐reported, the actual rate may be much higher. Total costs (including lost productivity) have been estimated at $1 billion annually. Given such widespread prevalence of skin diseases, we need better measures for predicting, quantifying, and preventing dermal exposure to hazardous agents. Dermal exposure to hazardous chemicals in the workplace has become an important occupational hygiene issue and a growing field of interest to health professionals in occupational hygiene and dermatology. Dermal exposure has been indicated as the primary source for the systemic exposure from chlorophenols, polychlorinated biphenyls, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH), glycol ethers, chlorpyrifos, acrylamide, cyclophosphamide, and 4,4’‐methylene dianiline. Exposure to chemicals, which may interact with endogenous nucleophilic sites in the skin directly (e.g., electrophilic isocyanates) or following metabolism to reactive metabolites (e.g., benzo[a]pyrene diolepoxide), has not been systematically investigated and is poorly understood. The deposition, absorption, and uptake of chemicals into and through the epidermis, and the biological consequences of dermal penetration are also difficult to measure. Thus, the significance of adverse health effects associated with dermal exposure is difficult to evaluate. A major limitation to our understanding and development of this area of research has been the absence of a reliable noninvasive method to determine chemical‐specific skin deposition and to investigate mechanisms of dermal toxicity. Thus, the threshold dose required to induce an adverse effect and toxicity from occupational and environmental exposure conditions cannot be determined accurately. Methods to assess the significance of dermal exposure are limited in number and scope. The current methods available for measuring dermal exposure, e.g., removal tecniques, surrogate techniques, fluorescence techniques, all suffer from fundamental problems and have not been adequately documented and validated. This chapter reviews and summarizes our current knowledge on dermal exposure assessment, and reviews and evaluates the current sampling methods.

show abstract

Techniques for Assessing “Removable” Surface Contamination

Cited by 13 publications

References 0 publications

Suction methods for assessing contamination on surfaces

Suction methods for assessing contamination on surfaces

Sampling of Surface Dust in Buildings

Occupational Dermal Exposure Assessment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About