Comparison between the Charcoal Tube Sampling Method and the Diffusive Sampler, and the Applicability of Diffusive Sampler in the Field

확산형포집기(3M OVM #3500)와 활성탄관의 유기용제 포집농도 비교 및 확산형포집기의 현장 적용 가능성

  • Jang, Sung Ho (Graduate School of Occupational Health, The catholic University of Korea) ;
  • Kim, Hyoung-Ah (Department of Perventive Medicine, College of medicine, The catholic University of Korea)
  • 장성호 (가톨릭대학교 산업보건대학원) ;
  • 김형아 (가톨릭대학교 의과대학 예방의학교실)
  • Received : 2005.09.29
  • Accepted : 2005.12.27
  • Published : 2005.12.30

Abstract

To investigate the field applicability of a diffusive sampler (3M OVM #3500, passive sampling method) authors conducted a simultaneous measurement of personal organic solvents exposure in the air of the workplaces by charcoal tube with low volume sampler (active sampling method) and diffusive sampler. Samples were collected and analyzed by NIOSH method ($NMAM^{(R)}$) from thirty-eight workers in 12 factories who work in 6 different processes. Geometric mean (GM) and geometric standard deviation (GSD) were used to describe the result. To compare the results of the two methods, paired t-test was used. According to the manual of the exposure assessment of the mixed organic solvents (Ministry of Labor, Korea), Em was calculated. Simple linear regression was used to evaluate the relationship between the two methods. Results were as follows; 1. Eight different solvents (ethyl acetate, n-hexane, toluene, xylene, acetone, isopropyl alcohol, methyl ethyl ketone (MEK), and methyl isobutyl ketone) were detected simultaneously in the two methods and the concentrations of the personal exposure were lower than 0.5 TLV level. The concentration of the charcoal tube method was higher than that of a diffusive sampler in n-hexane and MEK (p<0.05). 2. Em of the charcoal tube method was higher than that of diffusive sampler method but not significantly different and was lower than the OEL (Occupational Exposure Limit) in all 6 processes. 3. There was a significant correlation between the two methods in low concentrations of the 8 organic solvents (p<0.05). In conclusion, there was no difference in charcoal tube method and diffusive sampler method in low concentrations of some organic solvents, diffusive sampler can be applied to assess the personal monitoring in low level exposure.

Keywords

References

  1. 노동부. 작업환경 측정 및 정도관리 규정 (노동부고시 제2003-62호). 2003a
  2. 노동부. 작업환경관리백서. 2003b :38-67
  3. 노동부. 화학물질 및 물리적인자의 노출기준(노동부고시 제2002-8 호).2002
  4. 대한산업보건협회. 보건관리매뉴얼. 1992:1-11
  5. 박미진, 윤충식, 백남원. 확산포집기를 이용한 공기 중 유기용제 포집에 관한 연구. 한국산업위생학회지 1994;4(2):208-223
  6. 백남원. 작업환경측정 및 평가. 신광출판사, 2001:224-246
  7. 백남원. 산업위생학개론. 신광출판사 , 1997:61-90
  8. 백남원. 윤충식. 유기용제 측정을 위한 국산 수동식 시료채취기의 현장평가. 한국산업위생학회지 1998;8(1):124-132
  9. 백남원, 박미진, 윤충식. 공기중 유기용제 농도 측정에 있어서 수동식 시료채취 기의 성능평가 및 한국산 수동식 시료채취기의 개발에 관한 연구 제 1부 : 외국산 수동식 시료채취기의 성능 평가. 한국산업위생학회지 1996;6(1):109-124
  10. 변상훈, 박천재, 오세민, 이창하. 활성탄 섬유를 이용한 확산포집기의 공기 중 유기용제 포집효율에 관한 연구. 한국산업위생학회지 1996;6(2): 187-201
  11. 안규동, 연유용, 이병국. 확산형포집기와 활성탄관을 이용한 공기 중 혼합유기용제측정에 관한 연구. 한국산업위생학회지 1994;4(2):127-136
  12. 장경순. 확산형포집기와 활성탄관을 이용한 조선업 도장공정에서 공기중 혼합 유기용제의 포집비교. 석사학위논문. 가톨릭대학교 산업보건대학원.2002
  13. 조규상. 산업 보건학. 수문사, 1991: 273-284
  14. 조숙자, 백남원. 공기 중 유기용제 농도 측정에 있어서 국산 확산포집기와 활성탄관의 비교 연구. 한국산업위생학회지 1997;7 (1):33-48
  15. 한국 3M(주) . 확산모니터 측정 및 분석가이드(#3500, #3520 유기증기용 모니터)
  16. 한진구, 노영만, 김현욱. 확산포집기로 공기 중 혼합유기용제 포집시 온도와 상대습도가 포집효율에 미치는 영향. 한국산업위생학회지 1995;5(2):200-211
  17. ACGIH. Air sampling instruments for evaluation of atmospheric contaminants. 9th ed., ACGIH, 2001 :439-455
  18. Bdey DL, Dcerneny LT and Taylor DG. Diffusive monitoring of fluctuating concentrations. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1983;44(4):241-247 https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668391404734
  19. Brown RH, Charlton J and Saunders KJ.The development of an improved diffusive sampler. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1981;42:104-111 https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668191419433
  20. Brown RH, Harvey RP, Purnell CJ and Saunders KJ. A diffusive sampler evaluation protocol. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1984;45(2):67-75 https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668491399398
  21. Delcourt J and Sandino JP. Performance assessment of a passive sampler in industrial atmospheres. Int Arch Occup Environ Health 2001;74:49-54 https://doi.org/10.1007/s004200000192
  22. Feigley CE and Chastain JB. An experimental comparison of three diffusion samplers exposed to concentration profiles of organic vapors. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1981 ;43:227-234
  23. Harper M and Purnell CJ. Diffusive sampling-A review. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1987;43(3):214-218
  24. Hearl FJ and Manning MP. Transient response of diffusion dosimeters. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1985;41:778-783
  25. John LS, Hickey PE and Bishop CC. Field comparison of charcoal tubes and passive vapor monitors with mixed organic vapors. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1981;42(2):264-267 https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668191419703
  26. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). NIOSH Manual of Analytical Method. 4th edition, DHHS(NIOSH) Publication NO. 94- 113, NIOSH, Cincinnati, Ohio, 1994
  27. Nothskin, GTL, Hahne RMA, Spence MW. Evaluation of the costeffectiveness of various passive monitors and active monitors for industrial hygiene sampling. Am Ind Hyg Assoc 2000;60:64-68
  28. Occupational Safety and Health Adminisbation (OSHA). Occupational Safety and Health Administration Subscription Service Volume VI -OSHA Technical Manual, 1990
  29. Pristas R. Passive badges for compliance monitoring internationally. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1994;55(9):841-844 https://doi.org/10.1080/15428119491018583
  30. Tompkins FC, Goldsmith RL. A new personal dosimeter for the monitoring in the industrial pollutants. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1977;38:371-376 https://doi.org/10.1080/0002889778507636
  31. Varian technology Korea corp. Chromatography & spectroscopy supplies. Varian. 2001 : 429-515
  32. Werner MD. The effects of relative humidity on the vapor phase adsorption of trichloroethylene by activated charcoal. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1981;46:585-590