4.3 Article

Health Risks Assessment from Cured-in-Place Pipe Lining Fugitive Styrene Emissions in Laterals

出版社

ASCE-AMER SOC CIVIL ENGINEERS
DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)PS.1949-1204.0000690

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to improve understanding of styrene emissions in sewer laterals during the installation and steam curing of a resin impregnated cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) liner. The study included the development and assessment of a controlled field test program, which measured and recorded styrene emissions before, during, and after steam curing. The results were compared with published studies and regulatory exposure guidelines to evaluate the potential risk exposure. The measurements confirmed that high styrene concentrations can exist in sewer laterals during steam curing, but proper functioning P-traps prevent high styrene emissions from entering buildings.
The aim of this study was to improve the understanding of styrene emissions in sewer laterals, resulting from the installation and steam curing of a resin impregnated cured-in-place-pipe (CIPP) liner, within a sanitary sewer. The study included development and performance assessment of a controlled field test program that measures and records styrene emissions before, during, and after steam-curing a CIPP liner. Measured styrene emissions are then compared with those of published studies and regulatory exposure guidelines to assess the potential risk exposure. The field study measurements confirmed that high styrene concentrations can exist in sewer laterals during the steam-curing of the CIPP liner. They also confirm that water, in proper functioning P-traps, will prevent high styrene emissions from exiting the lateral and into buildings. Fugitive emission modeling shows that the risk of exceeding the acute exposure guideline limits is very low, even when high styrene concentrations exist in a lateral with a dry P-trap, and the styrene odor threshold is exceeded within the building, that is, when the building occupants smell styrene.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据