Issue 2, 2012

Field comparison of three inhalable samplers (IOM, PGP-GSP 3.5 and Button) for welding fumes

Abstract

Inhalable sampler efficiency depends on the aerodynamic size of the airborne particles to be sampled and the wind speed. The aim of this study was to compare the behaviour of three personal inhalable samplers for welding fumes generated by Manual Metal Arc (MMA) and Metal Active Gas (MAG) processes. The selected samplers were the ones available in Spain when the study began: IOM, PGP-GSP 3.5 (GSP) and Button. Sampling was carried out in a welding training center that provided a homogeneous workplace environment. The static sampling assembly used allowed the placement of 12 samplers and 2 cascade impactors simultaneously. 183 samples were collected throughout 2009 and 2010. The range of welding fumes' mass concentrations was from 2 mg m−3 to 5 mg m−3. The pooled variation coefficients for the three inhalable samplers were less than or equal to 3.0%. Welding particle size distribution was characterized by a bimodal log-normal distribution, with MMADs of 0.7 μm and 8.2 μm. For these welding aerosols, the Button and the GSP samplers showed a similar performance (P = 0.598). The mean mass concentration ratio was 1.00 ± 0.01. The IOM sampler showed a different performance (P < 0.001). The mean mass concentration ratios were 0.90 ± 0.01 for Button/IOM and 0.92 ± 0.02 for GSP/IOM. This information is useful to consider the measurements accomplished by the IOM, GSP or Button samplers together, in order to assess the exposure at workplaces over time or to study exposure levels in a specific industrial activity, as welding operations.

Graphical abstract: Field comparison of three inhalable samplers (IOM, PGP-GSP 3.5 and Button) for welding fumes

Article information

Article type
Paper
Submitted
29 Jul 2011
Accepted
05 Oct 2011
First published
28 Oct 2011

J. Environ. Monit., 2012,14, 375-382

Field comparison of three inhalable samplers (IOM, PGP-GSP 3.5 and Button) for welding fumes

A. Zugasti, N. Montes, J. M. Rojo and M. J. Quintana, J. Environ. Monit., 2012, 14, 375 DOI: 10.1039/C1EM10616C

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.

Spotlight

Advertisements