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

  • 제33권2호
  • /
  • Pages.93-102
  • /
  • 2023
  • /
  • 2384-132X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2289-0564(eISSN)
한국산업보건학회 (Korean Industrial Hygiene Association)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

산업현장에 활용되는 PID 직독식장비의 특성 고찰

Review Paper for Characterization of Photoionization Detector-Direct Reading Monitors

  • 김성호 (안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 직업환경연구실) ;
  • 박해동 (안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 직업환경연구실) ;
  • 황은송 (안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원 직업환경연구실)
  • Sungho Kim (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency) ;
  • Hae Dong Park (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency) ;
  • Eunsong Hwang (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency)
  • 투고 : 2023.02.01
  • 심사 : 2023.05.15
  • 발행 : 2023.06.30
PDF 다운로드
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: With the evolution of direct reading sensors, it is possible to monitor several substances through telecommunication. However, there are some limitations on the use of direct reading technologies in the Occupational Safety and Health Act in South Korea, which only applies to detector tubes, noise, heat, and carbon monoxides. The number of chemicals and their amount of use have been continuously increasing in South Korea. The Ministry of Employment and Labor (MoEL) has concerns about worker's health because exposure is only covered for about 1.2% of all distributed chemicals. Using a direct reading monitor with photoionization detectors (PID-DRMs), gases and vapors chemicals can be measured. Based on the data, business owners are able to create corrective strategies, provide better working routines, and select correct respiratory equipment. PID-DRMs are less expensive and easier to handle for an owner voluntarily controlling chemicals emitted in the workplace. However, there are several limitations on using these PID-DRMs to the degree that the MoEL has not been able to select a legal monitor. The aim of this study was to review previous studies related to PID-DRMs and identify the characterization and limitation on PID-DRMs. Methods: To search for related studies on PID-DRMs, key words were used including direct reading monitors/instruments and/or photoionization detectors. Through that, four domestic and 15 international studies were reviewed. Results: Studies on PID-DRMs were conducted by chamber (enclosed, dynamic, walk-in) and in the field (experimental environment, actual environment). The concentration of PID-DRMs and charcoal tubes were compared for a single substance or mixture, or within the PID-DRMs. There was a high correlation between the two concentrations, but it did not meet the accuracy criteria (95% confidence interval, within 25%) of the NIOSH technical report (2012). In addition, differences in measured values occurred according to environmental factors (temperature, humidity) and high concentration, and concentration values tended to be underestimated due to contamination of the sensor. As a way to improve the accuracy of PID concentration, it was proposed to use correction factors, charcoal tube-based correction factors, or to calibrate the PID-DRMs in the same environment as the workplace. Conclusions: PID-DRMs can likely be used by business owners for the purpose of voluntarily managing the workplace environment, and it is expected that it will be possible to use them as legal equipment if a PID sensor can be upgraded and the limitations of the sensor (temperature, humidity, high concentration evaluation, sensor pollution) can be overcome in the near future.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Alphasense. VOC Correction factor. Alphasense application note AAN 305-06. 2017
  2. American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). Technical framework, guidance on use of direct-reading instruments. AIHA. 2019
  3. Amir HK, Farideh G, Mojtaba B, Francisco CM, Seyed JS. Evaluation of direct reading photoionization detector performance under various operational parameters. HEMJ. 2021:8(2):123-128 https://doi.org/10.34172/EHEM
  4. Barsky JB, Hee SS, Clark CS. An Evaluation of the Response of Some Portable, Direct-Reading 10.2 eV and 11.8 eVP photoionization Detectors, and a Flame Ionization Gas Chromatograph for Organic Vapors in High Humidity Atmospheres. J Am Ind Hyg Assoc. 1985:46(1):9-14 https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668591394293
  5. Barsky JB, Hee SS, Clark CS, Trapp JH. Simultaneous multi-instrumental monitoring of vapors in sewer headspaces by several direct-reading instruments. Environ Res. 1986:39:307-320 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0013-9351(86)80057-3
  6. Chelton CF, Zakraysek N, Lautner GM, Confer RG. Evaluation of the performance and response of the bacharach TLV sniffer and H-Nu photoionization gas analyzer to common hydrocarbon solvents. J Am Ind Hyg Assoc. 1983:44(10):710-715 https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668391405616
  7. Choi DM, Choi YE, Yoon CS, Lee KW, Lee YE et al. Laboratory evaluation of the accuracy, precision, and inter-instrumental variance of a portable photoionization detector. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2012:22(3):200-208
  8. Coffey CC, LeBouf R, Lee L, Slaven J, Martin S. Effect of calibration and environmental condition on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2012:9(11):670-680 https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2012.725015
  9. Coffey CC, Pearce TA, Lawrence RB, Hudnall JB, Slaven JE et al. Measurement capability of field portable organic vapor monitoring instruments under different experimental conditions. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2008:6:1-8 https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620802514728
  10. Coffey CC, Pearce TA. Direct-reading methods for workplace air monitoring. J Chem Health Saf. 2010
  11. Coy JD, Bigelow PL, Buchan RM, Tessari JD, Parnell JO. Field Evaluation of a Portable Photoionization Detector for Assessing Exposure to Solvent Mixtures. J Am Ind Hyg Assoc. 2000:61:268-274 https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660008984536
  12. Drummond I. On-the-Fly Calibration of Direct Reading Photoionization Detectors. J Am Ind Hyg Assoc. 1997:58:820-822 https://doi.org/10.1080/15428119791012333
  13. DuBose DA, Brown GE, Harris GE. Response of portable VOC analyzers to chemical mixtures. EPA Research and Development. 1981. EPA-600/S2-81-110
  14. Ha KC, Kim SW, Pee YK. Direct reading monitors and sensor technology for workplace monitoring. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI). 2020
  15. Ham SH, Kim DH, Jang SK, Choi WJ, Lee WH. Electronics industry chemical detection sensor set development. Future Institute of Technology. 2020 (2020-Future Institute of Technology-1030)
  16. Han MI, Lee DY, Park CK, Kung JK, Yang HJ. Research on the development of modular sensor sets for workplace chemical detection. Future Institute of Technology. 2021 (document number: 2021-Future Institute of Technology-866)
  17. Han SW, Lee CS, Joo HS, Kim SY, Ryu HJ et al. Performance assessment of H2S, NH3, and VOCs sensors for field application. J Odor Indoor Environ. 2019:18(3):261-271 https://doi.org/10.15250/joie.2019.18.3.261
  18. Kim SH, Park HD, Hwang EY. Strategies for Working Environment Management by The Direct Reading Photoionization Monitor. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI). 2022a
  19. Kim W, Kim YK, You YS, Jung KH, Choi WJ et al. Development of an IoT smart sensor for detecting gaseous materials. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2022b:32(1):78-88 https://doi.org/10.115269/JKSOEH. 2022.32.1.78
  20. Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (KOSHA). Working environment measurement and analysis method for carbon monoxide. KOSHA GUIDE. 2021. A-189-2021
  21. LeBouf RF, Coffey CC. Effect of interferents on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2015:65(3):261-269 https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.986308
  22. LeBouf RF, Slaven JE, Coffey CC. Effect of calibration environment on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors. J Air Waste Manag Assoc. 2013:63(5):528-533 https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2013.772926
  23. Lee YK, Park JI, Lee JH, Jung TJ, Choi YE et al. A plot project for the integrated assessment and monitoring for workplace environment. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI). 2020
  24. Lee YK, Park JI, Lee JH, Jung TJ, Kim W. Integrated assessment and monitoring for better workplace environment management, Iam WEM - a preliminary study and stake holders' perception. Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute (OSHRI). 2021
  25. Longworth TL, Cajigas JC, Barnhouse JL, Ong KY, Procell SA. Testing of commercially available detectors against chemical warfare agents: summary report. Soldier and biological chemical command. 1999
  26. Ministry of Environment (MoE). Press release for chemical substance distribution survey in 2020. Ministry of environment. 2023.
  27. Ministry of Employment and Labor (MoEL). Occupational Safety and Health Act. MoEL. 2021
  28. Ministry of Employment and Labor (MoEL). Notice on work environment measurement and quality control. MoEL. 2020. 2020-44
  29. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). Components for evaluation of direct-reading monitors for gases and vapors. NIOSH technical report. 2012
  30. Poirot DI, Entreprise SE, Sante DP. Determination of Short-term Exposure with a Direct Reading Photoionization Detector. Ann Occup Hyg. 2004:1:75-84 https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meg079
  31. RAE. A guideline for PID instrument response. Technical Note TN-106. 2005
  32. RAE. The PID handbook-theory and applications of direat-reading photoionization detectors. 3rd ed. RAE. 2013
  33. RAE. Sensor specifications and cross-sensitivities. Technical Note TN-114. 2015
  34. Rismanchian M, Golbabaei F, Mortazzavi Y, Pourtaghi G, Fproushani AR. Evaluation of photoionization detector performance in photocatalytic studies for removing volatile organic compounds. Int J Env Health Eng. 2012:1(5):1-7 https://doi.org/10.4103/2277-9183.102383
  35. Siegel D, Abrams D, Hii J, Jahn S, Smith P et al. A practical guide for use of real time detection systems for worker protection and compliance with occupational exposure limits. WHITE PAPER. 2019.
  36. Soo JC, Lee EG, LeBouf RF, Kashon ML, Chisholm W et al. Evaluation of a portable gas chromatograph with photoionization detector under variations of VOC concentration, temperature, and relative humidity. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2018:15(4):351-360 https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2018.1426860
  37. Yang SB, Yu MS, Woo KB. A case study on the measurement volatile organic compounds and total hydrocarbon concentrations in block paint-shops at a shipyard. J of Envoron Sci International. 2016:25(8):1177-1189 https://doi.org/10.5322/JESI.2016.25.8.1177
  38. Yeo JH, Choi KM. Comparative analysis between direct-reading meter of PID and GC-FID using the active type air sampler for VOCs measurement. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg. 2016:26(3):301-306 https://doi.org/10.15269/JKSOEH.2016.26.3.301