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

Korean Industrial Hygiene Association (한국산업보건학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Relationships between a Calculated Mass Concentration and a Measured Concentration of PM2.5 and Respirable Particle Matter Sampling Direct-Reading Instruments in Taconite Mines

타코나이트 광산 공정에서의 실시간 질량측정기기와 실시간 수농도의 환산에 의한 질량농도와의 연관성

  • Chung, Eun-Kyo (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, KOSHA) ;
  • Jang, Jae-Kil (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, KOSHA) ;
  • Song, Se-Wook (Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, KOSHA) ;
  • Kim, Jeongho (Ministry of Employment and Labor)
  • 정은교 (한국산업안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원) ;
  • 장재길 (한국산업안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원) ;
  • 송세욱 (한국산업안전보건공단 산업안전보건연구원) ;
  • 김정호 (고용노동부)
  • Received : 2014.01.16
  • Accepted : 2014.03.21
  • Published : 2014.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

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.

Keywords

References

  1. ACGIH. Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, Ohio : American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists; 2013. p. 74-77
  2. Behnoush Y, Christy MK, Matthew SH, Linsey CM. Characterization of airborne particles during production of carbonaceous nanomaterials. Environ Sci Technol 2008;42:4600-4606 https://doi.org/10.1021/es703043c
  3. Berndt ME, Brice WC. The origins of public concern with taconite and human health: Reserve mining and the asbestos case. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2008;52:S31-S39 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.09.019
  4. Brown DM, Wilson MR, MacNee W, Stone V, Donaldson K. Size-dependent proinflammatory effects of ultrafine polystyrene particles: A role for surface area and oxidative stress in the enhanced activity of ultrafines. Toxicol Appl Pharm 2001;175:191-199 https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.2001.9240
  5. Chung A, Chang DP, Kleeman MJ, Perry KD, Cahill TA et al. Comparison of real-time instruments used to monitor airborne particulate matter. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2001;51:109-120 https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2001.10464254
  6. Cullen RT, Tran CL, Buchanan D, Davis JM, Searl A et al. Inhalation of poorly soluble particles: I. Differences in inflammatory response and clearance during exposure. Inhal Toxicol 2000;12:1089-1111 https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370050166787
  7. Dick CAJ, Brown DM, Donaldson K, Stone V. The role of free radicals in the toxic and inflammatory effects of four different ultrafine particle types. Inhal Toxicol 2003;15:39-52 https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370304454
  8. Donaldson K, Beswick PH, Gilmour PS. Free radical activity associated with the surface of unifying factor in determining biological activity. Toxicol Lett 1996;88:293-298 https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-4274(96)03752-6
  9. Donaldson K. Mechanisms for toxicity, in vitro in IEH report on: Approaches to predicting toxicity from occupational exposure to dusts. UK: Page Bros.; 1999. p. 17-26
  10. Donaldson K, Stone V, Gilmore PS, Brown DM, MacNee W. Ultrafine particles: Mechanisms of lung injury. Philos T Roy Soc A 2000;358:2741-2749 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2000.0681
  11. EPA. Emission factor documentation for AP-42 section 11.23 : Taconite ore processing, Final report. 1997. p. 1-43. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s23.pdf
  12. 23 : Taconite ore processing, Final report. 1997. p. 1-43. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s23.pdf
  13. EU. Commission recommendation of 18 October 2011 on the definition of nanomaterial (2011/696/EU). Official Journal L 275; 2011. p. 38-40
  14. Hwang JY, Ramachandran G, Raynor PC, Alexander BH, Mandel JH. Comprehensive assessment of exposures to elongate mineral particles in the taconite mining industry. Ann Occup Hyg 2013; 57(8):966-978 https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/met026
  15. Kim JY, Magari SR, Herrick RF, Thomas JS, David CC. Comparison of fine particle measurements from a direct-reading instrument and a gravimetric sampling method. J Occup Environ Hyg 2004;1:707-715 https://doi.org/10.1080/15459620490515833
  16. Lin CC, Chen SJ, Huang KL, Hwang WI, Chang-Chien GP et al. Characteristics of metals in nano/ ultrafine/fine/coarse particles collected beside a heavily trafficked road. Environ Sci Technol 2005;39(21):8113-8122 https://doi.org/10.1021/es048182a
  17. Lison D, Lardot C, Huaux F, Zanetti G, Fubini B. Influence of particle surface area on the toxicity of insoluble manganese dioxide dusts. Arch Toxicol 1997;71:725-729 https://doi.org/10.1007/s002040050453
  18. Milind K, Ramachandran G, Andrew M, Barbara M, William AT. Health risk assessment for nanoparticles: A case for using expert judgment. Journal of Nanoparticle Research 2007; 9:137-156
  19. Neulicht R, Shular J. Taconite ore processing, Final report. Retrieved January19, 2011. Available from: http://www.epa.gov/ttnchie1/ap42/ch11/bgdocs/b11s23.pdf
  20. NIOSH. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Method(0600). 3rd ed. Cincinnati, Ohio: National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health; 2003.
  21. Oberdorster G. Toxicology of ultrafine particles: In vivo studies. Philos T Roy Soc A 2000; 358:2719-2740 https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2000.0680
  22. Oberdorster G, Ferin J, Lehnert BE. Correlation between particle size, in vivo particle persistence, and lung injury. Environ Health Perspect 1994;102:173-179 https://doi.org/10.1289/ehp.94102s5173
  23. Oberdorster G, Sharp Z, Atudorei V, Elder A, Gelein R et al. Translocation of inhaled ultrafine particles to the brain. Inhal Toxicol 2004;16:437-445 https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370490439597
  24. Paik NW. Introduction to industrial hygiene. Korea Shin-Kwang Press.; 2000. p. 105-125
  25. Park JY, Ramachandran G, Raynor PC, Olson Jr GM. Determination of particle concentration rankings by spatial mapping of particle surface area, number, and mass concentrations in a restaurant and a die casting plant. J Occup Environ Hyg 2010;7:466-476 https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2010.485263
  26. Park JY, Raynor PC, Andrew DM, Lynn EE, Ramachandran G. Comparison of two estimation methods for surface area concentration using number concentration and mass concentration of combustion related ultrafine particles. Atmospheric Environment 2009;43:502-509 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2008.10.020
  27. Paul Hewett. IHDataAnalyst V1.27 (IHDA). Exposure Assessment Solutions, Inc. Available from: http://www.oesh.com/x%20Software/IHDA.php
  28. Phee YG, Jung JH, Nam MR. Exposure assessment of PM2.5 in manufacturing industry office building. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2013;23(4):356-366
  29. Raynor PC, Cebula JI, Spangenberger JS, Olson BA, Dasch JM et al. Assessing potential nanoparticle release during nanocomposite shredding using direct-reading instruments. J Occup Environ Hyg 2012;9:1-13 https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2012.633061
  30. Ramachandran G. Occupational Exposure Assessment for Air Contaminants. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press (ISBN: 1-56670-609-2).; 2005. p. 109-128
  31. Ramachandran G, Adgate JL, Hill N, Sexton K, Pratt GC et al. Comparison of short-term variations (15- minute averages) in outdoor and indoor PM2.5 concentrations. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 2000; 50:1157-1166 https://doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2000.10464160
  32. Ramachandran G, Ostraat M, Douglas EE, Mark MM, Patrick O'Shaughnessy et al. A strategy for assessing workplace exposures to nanomaterials. J Occup Environ Hyg 2011;8:673-685 https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.623223
  33. Ramachandran G, Paulsen D, Watts W, Kittelson D. Mass, surface area and number metrics in diesel occupational exposure assessment. J Environ Monit 2005;7:728-735 https://doi.org/10.1039/b503854e
  34. Renwick LC, Donaldson K, Clouter A. Impairment of alveolar macrophage phagocytosis by ultrafine particles. Toxicol Appl Pharm 2001;172:119-127 https://doi.org/10.1006/taap.2001.9128
  35. Tran CL, Buchanan D, Cullen RT, Searl A, Jones AD et al. Inhalation of poorly soluble particles: II. Influence of particle surface area on inflammation and clearance. Inhal Toxicol 2000;12:1113-1126 https://doi.org/10.1080/08958370050166796
  36. TSI. Model 8520 DustTrak Aerosol Monitor, Model 9306 Aerotrak, Model 8525 Ptrak, Model 9000 Aerotrak, Operation and Service Manual. St. Paul, Minnesota : TSI Incorporated, 2011. Available from: http://www.tsi.com/Products/
  37. Warheit DB, Laurence BR, Reed KL, Roach DH, Reynolds GA et al. Comparative pulmonary toxicity assessment of single-wall carbon nanotubes in rats. Toxicol Sci 2004;77:117-125
  38. William AH, Douglas EE, Ku BK, Andrew DM, Thomas JS et al. Relationships among particle number, surface area, and respirable mass concentrations in automotive engine manufacturing. J Occup Environ Hyg 2009;6:19-31
  39. Williams R, Suggs J, Rodes C, Lawless P, Zweidinger R et al. Comparison of PM2.5 and PM10 monitors. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol 2000;10(5):497-505 https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.jea.7500138
  40. Woo K, Chen D, Pui DYH, Wilson WE. Use of continuous measurements of integral aerosol parameters to estimate particle surface area. Aerosol Science and Technology 2001;34:57-65 https://doi.org/10.1080/02786820117549
  41. Yanosky JD, Williams PL, MacIntosh DL. A comparison of two direct-reading aerosol monitors with the federal reference method for PM2.5 in indoor air. Atmos Environ 2002;36:107-113 https://doi.org/10.1016/S1352-2310(01)00422-8
  42. Zanko L, Niles H, Oreskovich J. Mineralogical and microscopic evaluation of coarse taconite tailings from Minnesota taconite operations. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology 2008;52:51-65 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2007.09.016
  43. Zhu Y, Thomas JS, Mary ED, Jonathan IL, Robert H et al. Comparing gravimetric and real-time sampling of PM2.5 concentrations inside truck cabins. J Occup Environ Hyg 2011;8:662-672 https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2011.617234

Cited by

  1. Analytical methods for atmospheric particulate aerosols: Focused on the physical properties and chemical composition of metals and water soluble ionic compounds vol.28, pp.3, 2015, https://doi.org/10.5806/AST.2015.28.3.139
  2. Study on each phase characteristics of the whole coal life cycle and their ecological risk assessment—a case of coal in China vol.24, pp.2, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-016-7808-5