4.7 Article

Determining exhaust fumes exposure in chainsaw operations

Journal

ENVIRONMENTAL POLLUTION
Volume 218, Issue -, Pages 1162-1169

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envpol.2016.08.070

Keywords

PAHs; BTEX; Alkylate fuels; Chainsaw exhaust fumes; Forest operator inhalation exposure

Funding

  1. Tuscany Region Administration

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this study was to investigate the inhalation exposure of forest operators to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and total xylenes) contained in the exhaust fumes released from chainsaws and to suggest possible countermeasures. The study was carried out in four silvicultural treatments (coppice clearcut, conifer thinning, conifer pruning, and sanitary cut), using three types of chainsaw fuel (normal two-stroke petrol mix and two allcylate fuels). Eighty personal air samples were collected; IOM samplers combined with Amberlite XAD-2 sorbent tubes were used for collecting PAHs and Radiello((R)) samplers were used for BTEX. Results indicate that none of the four silvicultural treatments significantly affected the PAHs and BTEX inhalation exposure of forest workers. On the other hand, statistically significant differences were recorded in the inhalation exposure to PAHs and BTEX when using different fuel types. In particular, the inhalation exposure to PAHs and BTEX was generally one order of magnitude lower when using modern alkylate fuels as compared to the traditional oil and lead-free petrol mixture. The small, non-statistically significant differences in inhalation exposure recorded between the two alkylate fuels suggests that the two fuels might be equivalent in terms of quality. Our study indicates that while forest workers are exposed to PAHs and BTEX, the maximum values are generally well below accepted occupational exposure limits. (C) 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available