Open AccessUse of Field‐Portable X‐Ray Fluorescence (FPXRF) Analyzer to Measure Airborne Lead Levels in Korean Workplaces
Author(s) -
Kim NamSoo,
Kim JinHo,
Ahn KyuDong,
Lee ByungKook
Publication year - 2007
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.49.493
Subject(s) - environmental science , spectrum analyzer , membrane filter , repeatability , analytical chemistry (journal) , chemistry , environmental chemistry , chromatography , computer science , telecommunications , biochemistry , membrane
Use of Field‐Portable X‐Ray Fluorescence (FPXRF) Analyzer to Measure Airborne Lead Levels in Korean Workplaces: Nam‐Soo K im , et al . Institute of Environmental & Occupational Medicine, College of Medicine, Soonchunhyang University, Korea —We evaluated the possibility of applying field‐portable x‐ray fluorescence (FPXRF) analysis as a rapid, on‐site and near real‐time method for evaluating airborne lead contamination in Korean workplaces. A total of 287 airborne lead filter samples were measured in 12 lead‐using workplaces during routine industrial hygienic monitoring procedures as required by Korean government regulations. All filter samples were collected using the standard industrial hygiene sampling protocol described in NIOSH Method 7300 using closed‐face 37‐mm cassettes with preloaded cellulose ester membrane filters with a pore size of 0.8 µm. The samples were first analyzed using the nondestructive, FPXRF analytical method (NIOSH method 7702), and then subsequently analyzed using inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrophotometry (ICP) (NIOSH method 7300) as a reference analytical method. Pair‐wise comparison of filter samples using the paired t‐test revealed no statistically significant differences between the two methods over a wide range of airborne lead levels (0.018–0.201 µg/m 3 ) either over the industries assessed or separately in the 12 lead‐using workplaces. Linear regression of the data between the ICP and FPXRF methods produced a slope of 1.03, a y‐intercept of 0.13 µg/sample, and a coefficient of determinant (r 2 ) of 0.975 for all the data. For samples in the range from 0 to 100 µg, the corresponding values were 1.07, −1.20 µg/sample, and 0.925, respectively. There were no significant differences in the regression analyses of the three industry types (r 2 =0.964–0.982). Our data suggest that FPXRF data are highly correlated with those from the laboratory‐based ICP method in terms of accuracy, precision, and bias. Therefore, FPXRF can be used for the rapid, on‐site analysis of lead air‐filter samples for values up to 26 µg/sample prior to laboratory confirmation by the ICP method.