3.9 Article

Validation of the Analysis of Respirable Crystalline Silica (Quartz) in Foams Used with CIP 10-R Samplers

Journal

ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE
Volume 55, Issue 4, Pages 357-368

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/meq093

Keywords

CIP 10-R; foam; quartz; X-ray diffraction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Sampling the respirable fraction to measure exposure to crystalline silica is most often carried out using cyclones. However, low flow rates (<41 min(-1)) and continuing improvement in work-place hygiene means less and less material is sampled for analysis, resulting in increased analytical uncertainty. Use of the CIP 10-R sampler, working at a flow rate of 10 1 min-1, is one attempt to solve current analytical difficulties. To check the ability of the analysis of quartz sampled on foams, known amounts of quartz associated with a matrix have been injected into foams. The results obtained show that the proposed protocol, with prior acid attack and ashing of the foams, satisfies the recommendations of EN 482 Standard [CEN. (2006) Workplace atmospheres-general requirements for the performance of procedures for the measurements of chemical agents. Brussels, Belgium: EN 482 Comite Europeen de normalization (CEN).], namely an expanded uncertainty of <50% for quartz weights between 0.1 and 0.5 times the 8-h exposure limit value and <30% for quartz weights between 0.5 and 2 times the 8-h exposure limit value, assuming an exposure limit value equal to 0.1 mg m(-3). Results obtained show that the 101 reflection line allows a quartz quantity of the order of 25 mu g to be satisfactorily measured, which corresponds to a 10th of the exposure limit value, assuming an exposure limit value of 0.05 mg m(-3). In this case, the 100 and 112 reflection lines with expanded uncertainties of similar to 50% would also probably lead to satisfactory quantification. Particular recommendations are also proposed for the preparation of calibration curves to improve the method.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.9
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available