• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.33 no.2
• /
• pp.93-102
• /
• 2023

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.

• Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
• /
• v.24 no.1
• /
• pp.65-73
• /
• 2014

Objectives: The purposes of this study are to investigate workers' exposures to respirable particles generated in taconite mines and to compare two metric methods for mass concentrations using direct-reading instruments. Methods: Air monitorings were conducted at six mines where subjects have been exposed primarily to particulate matters in crushing, concentrating, and pelletizing processes. Air samples were collected during 4 hours of the entire work shift for similarly exposure groups(SEGs) of nine jobs(N=37). Following instruments were employed to evaluate the workplace: a nanoparticle aerosol monitor(particle size range; 10-1000 nm, unit: ${\mu}m^2/cc$, Model 9000, TSI Inc.); DustTrak air monitors($PM_{10}$, $PM_{2.5}$, unit: $mg/m^3$, Model 8520, TSI Inc.); a condensation particle counter(size range; 20-1000 nm, unit: #/cc, P-Trak 8525, TSI Inc.); and an optical particle counter(particle number by size range $0.3-25{\mu}m$, unit: #/cc, Aerotrak 9306, TSI Inc.). Results: The highest airborne concentration among SEGs was for furnace operator followed by pelletizing maintenance workers in number of particle and surface area, but not in mass concentrations. The geometric means of $PM_{2.5}$ by the DustTrak and the Ptrak/Aerotrak were $0.04{\mu}m$(GSD 2.52) and $0.07{\mu}m$(GSD 2.60), respectively. Also, the geometric means of RPM by the DustTrak and the Ptrak/Aerotrak were $0.16{\mu}m$(GSD 2.24) and $0.32{\mu}m$(GSD 3.24), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient for DustTrak $PM_{2.5}$ and Ptrak/Aerotrak $PM_{2.5}$ was 0.56, and that of DustTrak RPM and Ptrak/Aerotrak RPM was 0.65, indicating a moderate positive association between the two sampling methods. Surface area and number concentration were highly correlated($R^2$ = 0.80), while $PM_{2.5}$ and RPM were also statistically correlated each other($R^2$ = 0.79). Conclusions: The results suggest that it is possible to measure airborne particulates by mass concentrations or particle number concentrations using real-time instruments instead of using the DustTrak Aerosol monitor that monitor mass concentrations only.