Air sampling methodology for asphalt fume in asphalt production and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities: total particulate sampler versus inhalable particulate sampler.

Thomas S Calzavara, Charles M Carter, Charles Axten
{"title":"Air sampling methodology for asphalt fume in asphalt production and asphalt roofing manufacturing facilities: total particulate sampler versus inhalable particulate sampler.","authors":"Thomas S Calzavara,&nbsp;Charles M Carter,&nbsp;Charles Axten","doi":"10.1080/10473220301366","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>In 2000, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH(R)) changed its 1971 threshold limit value (TLV) for 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to asphalt from 5 mg/m(3) total particulate (generally < or =40 micrometer [microm] diameter) to 0.5 mg/m(3) inhalable particulate (< or =100 microm aerodynamic diameter) as benzene-soluble aerosol. To date, no inhalable particulate sampling method has been standardized and validated for asphalt fume. Furthermore, much of the historical data were collected using total particulate samplers, and the comparability of total versus inhalable size fractions of asphalt fume is not known. Therefore, the present study compared results from two types of asphalt fume samplers: 1) a traditional total particulate sampler with a 37-mm filter in a closed-face cassette with a 4-mm orifice (NIOSH 5042) versus (2) an inhalable particulate sampler designed by the IOM with a 15-mm orifice. A total of 75 simultaneous pairs of samples were collected, including personal and area samples from 19 roofing and asphalt production facilities operated by 7 different manufacturers. Each sample was analyzed for total mass collected and for benzene-soluble mass. Data from the two sampling methods (total versus inhalable) were comparable for asphalt fumes up to an aerosol concentration of 10 mg/m(3). However, we conclude that the traditional total particulate method is preferable, for this reason: The vast majority of asphalt fume particles are <12.5 microm in diameter. The traditional sampler is designed to collect primarily particles < or =40 microm, while the IOM sampler is optimized for collecting particles < or =100 microm. Thus, the traditional sampler is less likely than the IOM sampler to collect the larger-size fraction of airborne particles, most of which are non-asphalt dust.</p>","PeriodicalId":8182,"journal":{"name":"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene","volume":"18 5","pages":"358-67"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10473220301366","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10473220301366","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

In 2000, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH(R)) changed its 1971 threshold limit value (TLV) for 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) exposure to asphalt from 5 mg/m(3) total particulate (generally < or =40 micrometer [microm] diameter) to 0.5 mg/m(3) inhalable particulate (< or =100 microm aerodynamic diameter) as benzene-soluble aerosol. To date, no inhalable particulate sampling method has been standardized and validated for asphalt fume. Furthermore, much of the historical data were collected using total particulate samplers, and the comparability of total versus inhalable size fractions of asphalt fume is not known. Therefore, the present study compared results from two types of asphalt fume samplers: 1) a traditional total particulate sampler with a 37-mm filter in a closed-face cassette with a 4-mm orifice (NIOSH 5042) versus (2) an inhalable particulate sampler designed by the IOM with a 15-mm orifice. A total of 75 simultaneous pairs of samples were collected, including personal and area samples from 19 roofing and asphalt production facilities operated by 7 different manufacturers. Each sample was analyzed for total mass collected and for benzene-soluble mass. Data from the two sampling methods (total versus inhalable) were comparable for asphalt fumes up to an aerosol concentration of 10 mg/m(3). However, we conclude that the traditional total particulate method is preferable, for this reason: The vast majority of asphalt fume particles are <12.5 microm in diameter. The traditional sampler is designed to collect primarily particles < or =40 microm, while the IOM sampler is optimized for collecting particles < or =100 microm. Thus, the traditional sampler is less likely than the IOM sampler to collect the larger-size fraction of airborne particles, most of which are non-asphalt dust.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
沥青生产和沥青屋顶制造设施中沥青烟雾的空气采样方法:总颗粒采样器与可吸入颗粒采样器。
2000年,美国政府工业卫生学家会议(ACGIH(R))将其1971年的沥青8小时时间加权平均(TWA)暴露阈值(TLV)从5 mg/m(3)总颗粒(通常<或=40微米[微米]直径)改为0.5 mg/m(3)可吸入颗粒(<或=100微米气动直径)作为苯溶性气溶胶。迄今为止,没有可吸入颗粒物的采样方法已标准化和验证沥青烟。此外,大部分历史数据是使用总颗粒采样器收集的,沥青烟雾的总颗粒与可吸入颗粒的可比性尚不清楚。因此,本研究比较了两种类型沥青烟采样器的结果:1)带有37毫米过滤器的传统总颗粒采样器,在一个4毫米孔的封闭面盒中(NIOSH 5042); 2)由IOM设计的带有15毫米孔的可吸入颗粒采样器。共收集了75对同时进行的样本,包括来自7个不同制造商运营的19个屋顶和沥青生产设施的个人和区域样本。分析每个样品的总质量和苯溶质量。两种采样方法(总采样与可吸入采样)的数据对于高达10 mg/m气溶胶浓度的沥青烟雾具有可比性。然而,我们得出结论,传统的总颗粒法是可取的,因为:绝大多数沥青烟颗粒是
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Field Evaluation of Mandelic Acid in Urine as a Compliance Monitor for Styrene Exposure The Impact of Boundary Layer Separation on Local Exhaust Design and Worker Exposure Air-Lead Particle Sizes in Battery Manufacturing: Potential Effects on the OSHA Compliance Model Risk Assessment for Carcinogens: A Comparison of Approaches of the ACGIH and the EPA Industrial Ventilation News Digest
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1