Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene (한국산업보건학회지)

Korean Industrial Hygiene Association (한국산업보건학회)
권호 표지

Characteristic comparison of Andersen and total suspended particulate samplers in a particulate matter generation chamber

입자 발생 챔버를 이용한 Andersen과 총분진 시료채취기의 특성 비교

  • Park, Ju-Myon (Dept. of Environmental Engineering, Yonsei University)
  • 박주면 (연세대학교 환경공학부)
  • Received : 2008.04.08
  • Accepted : 2008.09.09
  • Published : 2008.09.30
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to compare the performance characteristics of Andersen and total suspended particulate (TSP) samplers in terms of particle size distribution (PSD) and mass sampling efficiency. In the present study, two Andersen and four TSP samplers were selected and tested to quantitatively estimate human exposure to fly ash representing industrial particulate matter (PM) in a carefully controlled chamber. The PSD characteristics, a mass median aerodynamic diameter and a geometric standard deviation, were found from the sampled PM of airborne samplers in the chamber. An Andersen sampler was compared with a TSP sampler quantified by a coulter counter multisizer, as a reference sampler, to describe the correlation of mass sampling efficiencies between two types of samplers. Overall results indicate that Andersen samplers overestimated small PM due to particle bounce phenomena between impaction stages. There was reasonably good correlation ($R^2$ = 0.89 and 0.91) between the mass sampling efficiencies of Andersen and TSP samplers during the two tests. However, the lower values of slope (0.71 and 0.72) in two tests showed that the Andersen sampler underestimated PM (> AD $10.1\;{\mu}m$) with sufficient inertia due to a relatively lower Andersen inlet velocity at 0.8 m/s comparing with the operating air velocity at 2.1 m/s in the sampling zone of a chamber.

Keywords

References

  1. 노동부. 산업재해분석. 2006. (7-24쪽)
  2. 한국산업규격 (KS). KS A ISO 0082, 로 볼륨 에어 샘플러법 및 로 볼륨 에어샘플러에 의한 공기 중 부유 분진 측정 방법 해설. 한국표준협회 2003. (2-11쪽)
  3. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH): Threshold Limit Values for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents and Biological Exposure Indices. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH; 1996. p. 83-86
  4. Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN): Workplace Atmospheres - Size Fraction Definitions for Measurement of Airborne Particles in the Workplace (CEN EN 481). Brussels: CEN; 1993. p. 3-11
  5. Comite Europeen de Normalisation (CEN): Workplace Atmospheres - Assessment of Performance of Instruments for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations. (CEN EN 13205). Brussels: CEN; 2002. p 23-29
  6. Cushing KM, McCain JD, Smith, WB. Experimental determination of sizing parameters and wall losses of five source-test cascade impactors. Environmental Science & Technology 1979;13:726-731 https://doi.org/10.1021/es60154a019
  7. Dunbar C, Kataya A, Tiangbe T. Reducing bounce effects in the Andersen cascade impactor. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 2005;301, 25-32 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpharm.2005.04.039
  8. Hinds WC. Aerosol technology properties, behavior, and measurement of airborne particles. New York: Wiley Inc.; 1999. p. 75-110; 128-134; 53-55
  9. Horton KD, Ball MHE, Mitchell JP. The calibration of a California measurements PC-2 Quartz Crystal cascade impactor (QCM). Journal of Aerosol Science 1992;23(5):505-524 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8502(92)90020-V
  10. International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Air Quality Particle Size Fraction Definition for Health-Related Sampling (ISO CD 7708). Geneva: ISO; 1995. p. 3-6
  11. May KR. The cascade impactor: An instrument for sampling coarse particles. Journal of Scientific Instruments 1945;22:187-195 https://doi.org/10.1088/0950-7671/22/10/303
  12. Mitchell JP, Nagel MW. Cascade impactors for the size characterization of aerosols from medical inhalers: their uses and limitations. Journal of Aerosol Medicine 2003;16(4):341-377 https://doi.org/10.1089/089426803772455622
  13. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Particulates Not Otherwise Regulated, Total (NIOSH 0500). Cincinnati, OH: Department of Health and Human Services/NIOSH, 1994. pp. 1-3
  14. Park J-M. Assessment of suspended dust from pipe rattling operations Appendix D Cutoff size calculation (Andersen sampler), Appendix G Shape factor review. PhD Dissertation, Texas A&M University; 2005. p. 136-143 & 157-160
  15. Rock JC, Chapter 2 Occupational air sampling strategies, in: Cohen BS et al. (8th Eds.), Air sampling instruments, ACGIH, Cincinnati OH: 1995. p. 19-44
  16. Swanson PD, Muzzio FJ, Annapragada A, Adjei A. Numerical analysis of motion and deposition of particles in cascade impactors. International Journal of Pharmaceutics 1996;142:33-51 https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-5173(96)04643-1
  17. Turner JR, Hering SV. Greased and oiled substrates as bounce-free impaction surfaces. Journal of Aerosol Science 1987;18:215-224 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8502(87)90057-7
  18. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). 40CFR Part 50: National Primary and Secondary Ambient Air Quality Standards Appendix B. Reference method for the determination of suspended particulate matter in the atmosphere (high-volume method). Washington, DC: USEPA; 1987
  19. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Method IO-2: "Integrated Sampling of Suspended Particulate Matter (SPM) in Ambient Air", Washington, DC: USEPA; 1999. p. 1-4.
  20. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Fact Sheet: EPA Strengthens National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particle Pollution, Washington, DC: USEPA; 2006. Available from: URL:http://epa.gov/air/particles/pdfs/20060921_factsheet.pdf
  21. Vaughan NP. The Andersen impactor: calibration, wall losses and numerical simulation. Journal of Aerosol Science 1989;20:67-90 https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-8502(89)90032-3
  22. Wanjura JD, Parnell CB, Shaw BW, Lacey RE. Design and evaluation of a low-volume total suspended particulate sampler. Transactions of the ASAE 2005;48(4):1547-1552 https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.19186
  23. Wang L, Wanjura JD, Parnell CB, Lacey RE, Shaw BW. Performance characteristics of a low-volume PM10 sampler. Transactions of the ASAE 2005;48(2):739-748 https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.18316
  24. Zimon, AD. Adhesion of Dust and Powder. Consultants Bureau, New York: Plenum Publishing Co.; 1982. p. 61-62