4.1 Article

ASSESSMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO GASEOUS PERACETIC ACID

出版社

NOFER INST OCCUPATIONAL MEDICINE, POLAND
DOI: 10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01166

关键词

Chromatography; Electrochemical sensors; Peracetic acid; Air monitoring; Short-term exposure; Visual test strip PAA detector

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: In order to assess short-term exposure to peracetic acid (PAA) in disinfection processes, the Authors compared 4 industrial hygiene monitoring methods to evaluate their proficiency in measuring airborne PAA concentrations. Material and Methods: An active sampling by basic silica gel impregnated with methyl p-tolyl sulfoxide (MTSO), a passive solid phase micro-extraction technique using methyl p-tolyl sulfide (MTS) as on-fiber derivatization reagent, an electrochemical direct-reading PAA monitor, and a novel visual test strip PAA detector doped with 2,2'-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline)-6-sulfonate were evaluated and tested over the range of 0.06-16 mg/m(3), using dynamically generated PAA air concentrations. Results: The linear regression analysis of linearity and accuracy showed that the 4 methods were suitable for PAA monitoring. Peracetic acid monitoring in several use applications showed that the PAA concentration (1.8 mg/m(3)) was immediately dangerous to life or health as proposed by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and was frequently exceeded in wastewater treatment (up to 7.33 mg/m(3)), and sometimes during food and beverage processes and hospital high-level disinfection operations (up to 6.8 mg/m(3)). Conclusions: The methods were suitable for the quick assessment of acute exposure in PAA environmental monitoring and can assist in improving safety and air quality in the workplace where this disinfectant is used. These monitoring methods allowed the evaluation of changes to work out practices to reduce PAA vapor concentrations during the operations when workers are potentially overexposed to this strong antioxidant agent.

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

4.1
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