Open AccessMonitoring methodology for gaseous hazards. Passive monitors and portable instruments.
Author(s) -
Mary Lynn Woebkenberg
Publication year - 1983
Publication title -
scandinavian journal of work, environment and health
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.621
H-Index - 103
eISSN - 1795-990X
pISSN - 0355-3140
DOI - 10.5271/sjweh.2420
Subject(s) - dosimeter , solvent , trichloroethylene , vinyl chloride , humidity , environmental science , toluene , analytical chemistry (journal) , chemistry , process engineering , chromatography , environmental chemistry , meteorology , engineering , organic chemistry , physics , quantum mechanics , radiation , copolymer , polymer
Reliable sampling and analytical procedures for monitoring workplace hazards must be developed and evaluated. In the present communication three studies involving the evaluation and development of personal monitoring techniques were presented. The first study described an evaluation of three passive monitors for organic solvent vapors. Toluene, trichloroethylene, n-hexane, acetone, methylene chloride, and vinyl chloride, each at three concentrations, as well as effects of temperature, humidity, linear adsorption capacity, variable concentration, complex solvent mixture, and storage time, were addressed. The results indicated that under specified conditions passive monitors are viable monitoring methods. The second study was an evaluation of two carbon monoxide dosimeters. Instrument accuracy, precision, and performance under a variety of experimental conditions were examined. Sufficient samples were taken to show that the Energetics Science series 9000 dosimeter was within +/- 25% of the true value 95% of the time. The General Electric model 15ECS1CO2 did not meet this same criterion. The third study describes the development of a unique sampling method for nitrogen dioxide using Poroplastic film impregnated with the absorbing liquid and a spacing material which allows for airflow and distribution to the absorber. The overall method, evaluated over the concentration range of 0.9 to 19 micrograms/1 in 36-1 samples, had an average bias of 7% with a coefficient of variation of 10%.