Umeå University's logo

Diffusive sampling methods have been validated for the determination of naphthalene and phenanthrene in workplace air. The diffusive sampler tested was the Perkin Elmer ATD tube, and the analysis was performed with thermal desorption, gas chromatography, and mass spectrometric detection. The sampling methods were validated in controlled test atmospheres, mainly according to the protocol proposed in the European standard EN 838. For the determination of naphthalene, the diffusive sampling rate was 0.41 ml min21 with a coefficient of variation (CV) of 19%. The mean sampling rate for phenanthrene was 0.49 ml min21 with a CV of 21%. Field tests confirmed the naphthalene results but could not be used to confirm the phenanthrene results. The method is not recommended for phenanthrene sampling unless the method has been tested in the specific environment and the results confirm the laboratory tests.

New sampling methods are needed to simplify and enable frequent monitoring of workers' exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs). The sampler needs to fulfil some key operational requirements for occupational exposure assessments: (i) be usable as a personal sampler; (ii) work over 8 h exposure time; (iii) sequester PAHs both in gas and particle phase, (iv) yield reliable estimates of air concentrations. Here, a new smaller design of the traditional polyurethane foam (PUF) passive air sampler (PAS) (i.e. a 'mini-PUF') was introduced and assessed against these requirements in sites with elevated PAH concentrations. The exposure times were 2 weeks and 8 hours. The obtained sampling rates (R-values) were not significantly different between gas phase (0.4-3.3 m(3) day(-1), 0.3-2.3 L min(-1)) and particle associated PAHs (0.5-1.9 m(3) day(-1), 0.4-1.3 L min(-1)). The accuracy in estimating air concentrations was within +/-25% from the active sampler for half of the PAHs for the mini-PUF under 8 h exposures. Significant correlations (p < 0.003) were found between personally deployed mini-PUFs and a co-deployed personal active sampling method. This together with the low costs and ease-of-use of the mini-PUF encourage application in exposure assessments.

Exposure measurements should be performed as close as possible to the nose and mouth for a more correct assessment of exposure. User-friendly sampling equipment, with a minimum of handling before, during and after measurement, should not affect ordinary work. In diffusive (passive) sampling, no extra equipment as sampling pumps is needed, making the measurements more acceptable to the user. The diffusive samplers are normally attached on a shoulder, on a breast-pocket or on the lapel. There are, however, difficulties if true breathing-zone sampling is to be performed, since available diffusive samplers normally cannot be arranged close to the nose/mouth. The purpose of this work was to study the performance of a miniaturized tube type diffusive sampler attached to a headset for true breathing-zone sampling. The basis for this miniaturization was the Perkin Elmer ATD tube. Both the size of the tube and the amount of adsorbent was decreased for the miniaturized sampler. A special tube holder to be used with a headset was designed for the mini tube. The mini tube is thermally desorbed inside a standard PE tube. The new sampler was evaluated for the determination of styrene, both in laboratory experiments and in field measurements. As reference method, diffusive sampling with standard Perkin Elmer tubes, thermal desorption and gas chromatographic (GC) analysis was used. The sampling rate was determined to 0.356 mL min^-1 (CV 9.6%) and was not significantly affected by concentration, sampling time or relative humidity.

Two types of diffusive samplers, both of which are compatible with thermal desorption, but differ in their geometry-SKC-Ultra (badge-type) and Radiello (radial symmetry-type)-were evaluated indoors and outdoors under varying temperature, humidity and wind speed conditions, using the graphitized adsorbents Carbopack X or Carbograph 5 to measure 1,3-butadiene and benzene in ambient air. The results obtained by diffusive sampling were compared with results obtained using a conventional active sampling method over both long (1 week) and shorter periods (6-24 h). Analysis and detection were performed using an automatic thermal desorber (ATD) connected to a gas chromatograph-flame ionization detector (GC/FID). Results from each sampler and adsorbent combination were examined using ordinary or multiple linear regression analysis. The overall uncertainty (OU) was also determined. In general, the results obtained with both samplers showed good agreement with those obtained by active sampling. Carbopack X appeared to be a more efficient adsorbent than Carbograph 5 for 1,3-butadiene, but the two adsorbents were equivalent for benzene. No effects of either humidity or air velocity were observed. Minor temperature effects were observed for both samplers for 1,3-butadiene. In summary, the results confirmed the accuracy of sampling rates previously determined for the two samplers and adsorbents. We consider the two samplers to be suitable for stationary and personal monitoring for the general population of 1,3-butadiene and benzene in various environments, indoors and outdoors. They are almost independent of meteorological conditions and may be suitable for monitoring industrial atmospheres.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate dermal exposure to the resin acids abietic acid, dehydroabietic acid and 7-oxodehydroabietic acid during collecting in sawmills and during sawing in carpentry workshops, respectively. METHODS: Sampling was performed by fastening patches at 12 different areas on a sampling overall, one patch on the front of a cap, one patch on the chest inside the clothing and one patch on the inner lower right leg. Exposure of the hands was assessed by fastening patches on cotton gloves representing the dorsal sides and the palms of the left and right hands. Sampling was performed on 30 different occasions in the sawmills and in the carpentry workshops with mean sampling times of 120 and 59 min, respectively. The acids were solvent desorbed from the patches. Identification and quantification of the resin acids was performed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. RESULTS: The geometric means (GMs) of the potential body exposures to abietic acid, dehydroabietic acid and 7-oxodehydroabietic acid during sawing and collecting of wood from pine and spruce were 3346 and 17 247 micro g/h, respectively. The GM of the potential exposure on the hands was 3020 micro g/h in the carpentry workshops and 4365 micro g/h in the sawmills. Resin acids were detected on the inner chest and inner lower front right leg, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: There is a potential dermal exposure to terpenic resin acids in carpentry workshops as well as in sawmills. The hands have the highest exposure during sawing as well as during collecting. There is a spatial distribution of contaminants, with the outer chest, arms and legs showing the highest exposures. Resin acids also contaminated the inner chest and inner lower leg. It is necessary to take action to reduce dermal exposure to these allergenic substances.