|
KMID : 0895420140240010065
|
|
Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Enviromental Hygiene
2014 Volume.24 No. 1 p.65 ~ p.73
|
|
|
Relationships between a Calculated Mass Concentration and a Measured Concentration of PM2.5 and Respirable Particle Matter Sampling Direct-Reading Instruments in Taconite Mines
|
|
Chung Eun-Kyo
Jang Jae-Kil
Song Se-Wook
Kim Jeong-Ho
|
|
|
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: ㎛2/cc, Model 9000, TSI Inc.); DustTrak air monitors(PM10, PM2.5, unit: ㎎/ ㎥, 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 ㎛, 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 PM2.5 by the DustTrak and the Ptrak/Aerotrak were 0.04 mg/m3(GSD 2.52) and 0.07 mg/m3(GSD 2.60), respectively. Also, the geometric means of RPM by the DustTrak and the Ptrak/Aerotrak were 0.16 ㎎/㎥(GSD 2.24) and 0.32 ㎎/㎥(GSD 3.24), respectively. The Pearson correlation coefficient for DustTrak PM2.5 and Ptrak/Aerotrak PM2.5 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(R2 = 0.80), while PM2.5 and RPM were also statistically correlated each other(R2 = 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.
|
|
|
KEYWORD
|
|
|
direct-reading instruments, number and surface area concentration, PM2.5, respirable particles
|
|
|
FullTexts / Linksout information
|
|
|
|
|
|
Listed journal information
|
|
|
|