Open AccessRe‐characterization of Some Factors Influencing Aerosol Sampling in the Workplace: Results from Field Studies
Author(s) -
Hu Fengxia,
Wang Limin,
Wang Zhenglun,
Liang Jiaojun,
Li Jichao,
Mao Geshi,
Yi Gulin,
Zhao Lei,
Wu Jiabing,
Koob Michael,
Chen Weihong,
Dahmann Dirk,
Yang Lei
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
journal of occupational health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.664
H-Index - 59
ISSN - 1348-9585
DOI - 10.1539/joh.13-0221-oa
Subject(s) - blank , aerosol , environmental science , shipyard , calibration , sampling (signal processing) , passive sampling , sample (material) , statistics , materials science , meteorology , chemistry , composite material , engineering , geography , mathematics , chromatography , shipbuilding , filter (signal processing) , electrical engineering , archaeology
Re‐characterization of Some Factors Influencing Aerosol Sampling in the Workplace: Results from Field Studies: Fengxia HU, et al . Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, MOE Key Lab of Environment and Health, School of Public Health, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, China—Objective Workplace aerosol sampling is challenged by its influencing factors and methodological limitations. Some factors, including blank setting, electrostatic effect, sample mass gain, and limit of detection (LOD), were studied to characterize them further and thereby to improve the sampling method. Methods Through a field sampling in two shipyards and by an analysis of a large amount of dust data from different industries, the influencing factors were comparatively studied with emphasis on their effect on the final result. Results After calibration with field blanks, the concentrations of most sample types in the shipyards decreased significantly, varying by as much as −24.3% of the final measurements. After laboratory blank calibration, dust concentrations increased or decreased without a definite change trend. With a variation of −1.8%, only the measurements of Chinese “total dust” sampled with polypropylene filters were significantly influenced by the electrostatic effect. The LOD coincidence rate was only 17.3% for American respirable dust in different industries and 12.2% for respirable particles collected by normal flow rate samplers (FSP2) in the shipyards. The latter increased to 73.9% when high flow samplers (FSP10) were used. Conclusions It was suggested that field blank calibration was the predominant influencing factor in comparison with electrostatic effect and laboratory blank adjustment. The LOD coincidence rate was too low for reliable sampling, and this might be improved by use of high flow samplers.