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

Korean Industrial Hygiene Association (한국산업보건학회)
권호 표지

Comparison of formaldehyde concentration in working environment between passive sampling method and impinger sampling method

능동포집법과 확산포집법에 의한 작업환경 중 포름알데히드 농도 비교

  • Ham, Seong-Ae (Institute of Industrial Medicine & Department of Occupational and Environmental Meddicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University) ;
  • Mun, Deok-Hwan (Institute of Industrial Medicine & Department of Occupational and Environmental Meddicine, Busan Paik Hospital, Inje University)
  • 함성애 (인제대학교 산업의학연구소 및 부산백병원 산업의학과) ;
  • 문덕환 (인제대학교 산업의학연구소 및 부산백병원 산업의학과)
  • Received : 2006.03.03
  • Accepted : 2006.11.15
  • Published : 2006.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

The purpose of this study was conducted to ascertain the difference between impinger and passive sampling methods in the process of sampling and analyzing on airborne formaldehyde. Formaldehyde generating workplaces included in this study comprised four types of manufacturing industry such as two workplaces of products of wood, cork, straw and plaiting materials manufacturing industries, one casting metal manufacturing industry, and one parts and accessories for motor vehicles and it′s engines manufacturing industry. Workplaces contained in this study were located in some manufacturing area of Busan industrial complex and this study was carried out during a period from January 2003 to December 2004. Analytical accuracy, precision and detection limit of two methods was compared. Exposure level of its airborne concentration was evaluated in formaldehyde generating workplaces those were classified by types of industry, working process, and time. The results were as follows ; 1. A rate of recovery was 107.1% in impinger method and 101.8% in passive method, and precision was 7.79% in impinger method and 4.40% in passive method. There was no statistical significance in analytical accuracy and precision between two methods. A limitation of detection was 0.011 ppm in passive method which was lower than that of impinger method (0.020 ppm) by 1.8 times. 2. Airborne formaldehyde concentration of impinger method was different from passive method. It′s concentration by passive method was higher by 5.1 times than that by impinger method in the parts and accessories for motor vehicles and it′s engines manufacturing industry (P<0.05). Only in molding process among several types of processes, formaldehyde concentration in passive method was higher by 5.1 times than that in impinger method (P<0.05). Furthermore, formaldehyde concentration in passive method was higher by 1.7 times than that in impinger method (P<0.05) in the first half of year 2003. 3. The geometric mean of formaldehyde concentration in impinger method was lower than that in passive method, but there was no statistical significance of formaldehyde concentration by the difference of sampling method. In conclusion, it is difficult to conclude which is better between the two sampling methods because of no statistical significance for the difference of concentration. Because of lacks of certified passive sampling and analytical method, at present situation, studies on verification of accuracy and precision, obstructive reaction against validity on its exposure assessment, and research to develop domestically manufactured passive sampler in terms of cost-effectiveness should be continuously carried out.

Keywords

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 인제대학교

References

  1. 김은선, 안선희, 김강윤, 최호춘. 흡광광도계, 기체크로마토 그래프 및 액체크로마토그래프를 이용한 기중 포름알데 히드 분석법 비교. 산업보건 2001;2월호:28-36.12)
  2. 노동부. 화학물질 및 물리적인자의 노출기준(고시 제2002-8 호). 서울. 12002;1-114
  3. 문성명. Chemical product dictionary. 서울 : 학원출판사, 1991:400-409, 1103-1106, 1907-1919
  4. 이광묵. 포름알데하이드. 서울 : 산업보건, 1995:18-20
  5. 이규태. 포름알데하이드에 노출된 근로자들의 자각증상에 관한 연구. 서울: 연세대학교 보건대학원, 1993
  6. 장미, 김현욱. 능동포집과 확산포집법에 의한 일부합판제조 업의 공정별 포름알데히드 농도비교. 한국위생학회지 1996;6:17-27
  7. 정규철 편저. 산업중독편람. 신광출판사. 1995:442-445
  8. 통계청. 한국표준산업분류. 2000;1-880
  9. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. Air Sampling Instruments for Evaluation of Atmospheric Contaminants, 7th ed. Cincinnati: ACGIH, 1989
  10. American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, Inc. Documentation of the Threshold Limit Values and Biological Exposure Indices, 6th ed. Cincinnati: ACGIH, 1991:664-688
  11. 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
  12. Edling C, Odkvist L, Hellquist H. Formaldehyde and the nasal mucosa. Br J Ind Med 1985;42:570-571
  13. Godish T. Indoor air pollution control. Michigan, Lewis Publishers, 1991:37-41
  14. H. Kaiser ; Analysis Chemical. 1970;53A:42
  15. Holmstrom M, Wilhelmsson BO. Respiratory symptoms and pathophysiological effects of occupational exposure to formaldehyde and wood dust. Scand. J. work Environ. Health 1988;14:306-311 https://doi.org/10.5271/sjweh.1915
  16. Kollman JR. Field evaluation of a diffusive sampler for monitoring formaldehyde in air - a comparison of methods. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 1994;9(4):262-266 https://doi.org/10.1080/1047322X.1994.10388310
  17. Konopinski VJ. Seasonal formaldehyde concentrations in an office building. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1985;46(2):65-68 https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668591394400
  18. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 3th ed, Method No. 2541. Ohio: NIOSH, 1989
  19. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods(NMAM), 4th ed, Method No. 3500. Ohio: NIOSH, 1994
  20. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. A NIOSH technical report guidelines for air sampling and analytical method development and evaluation, DHHS(NIOSH) Pub. No. 95-117. Cincinnati, OH, NIOSH, 1995
  21. Malak T, Kodama AM. Respiratory health of plywood workers occupationally exposed to formaldehyde. Arch Env Hlth J 1990;45(2):288-294 https://doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1990.10118748
  22. Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Analytical Method Manual, ID. 52. Utah: OSHA 1989
  23. Robinson CF, Fowler D, Brown DP, Lemen RA. Plywood mill worker`s mortality pattern. Cincinnati: U.S Department of Health and Human Services. 1987;34
  24. Taylor JK. Quality assurance of chemical measurement. Chelsea, MI, Lewis Publishers Inc. 1987;20-24
  25. 3M Company 산업안전 및 환경안전 제품부. 3M Air Monitoring Guide 3720/3721, 1996