3.9 Article

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

期刊

ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE
卷 55, 期 4, 页码 357-368

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/meq093

关键词

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

向作者/读者索取更多资源

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.

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

3.9
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