Breathing Air Quality, Sampling and Testing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Breathing Air Quality, Sampling and Testing Environmental Health Laboratory Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences School of Public Health University of Washington Funding and support from The State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries Safety & Health Investment Projects Medical Aid and Accident Fund Breathing Air Quality, Sampling, and Testing Environmental Health Laboratory Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences School of Public Health University of Washington Funding and support from The State of Washington Department of Labor & Industries Safety & Health Investment Projects Medical Aid and Accident Funds 1 University of Washington Environmental Health Laboratory Table of Contents Overview ...............................................................................1 Background ...........................................................................2 Regulated Components of Breathing Air ...............................7 Performance of Breathing Air Testing Kits ............................9 Laboratory Accreditation .....................................................18 Guidance Summary .............................................................19 Glossary ..............................................................................20 References ...........................................................................22 List of Tables Table 1. Breathing Air Quality Specifications ........................2 Table 2. Description of Kits Tested ........................................9 Table 3. Observations on Safety and Durability ...................10 Table 4. Tester’s Opinions on Kits .......................................10 2 Breathing Air Quality, Sampling, and Testing Overview In response to queries on alternatives to high-pressure sampling of breath- ing air and lack of independent information on the accuracy, functionality, durability, and safety of commercially available breathing air quality assess- ment kits, the Environmental Health Laboratory (EHL) at the University of Washington evaluated six representative breathing air sampling kits from the many available. Kits were tested in the laboratory and by personnel at three fire departments and one commercial diving company. In addition to the results from testing, generalized guidance for breathing air quality assess- ment, avoidance of problems, and problem solving is provided. Information on regulated contaminants is presented for better appreciation of breathing air quality regulations. 1 Background Statutes and codes for breathing air quality parameters Water in Firefighter Air are shown in Table 1. In Washington state, regulated When the regulatory level of water in breathing air was components for commercial diving breathing air are lowered to 24 ppm in 1997, the number of breathing air listed in Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296- quality failures due to excessive water vapor increased, 37-570(2)(C), while those for firefighting breathing air even though breathing air systems were being maintained are given in WAC 296-305-04001(21); some fire agen- to manufacturer recommendations. This frustrating and cies choose to follow specifications in the more restrictive confusing situation was aggravated when tests using SCBA Breathing Air Quality Specification in the Na- some commercial kits always passed and misinforma- tional Fire Protection Code (NFPA). tion circulated that water content was not important for SCBA air. Table 1. Breathing Air Quality Specifications Washington Washington Commercial CGA CGA Fire Fighting Diving Grade D Grade E OSHA NFPA 1989 Citation WAC 296- WAC 296- ANSI G 7.1 ANSI G 7.1 29 CFR 1910.134 2008 edition 305-04001 37-570 5th ed. 5th ed. Date effective 3/1/05 11/1/04 8/27/04 8/27/04 1/8/98 12/31/07 Frequency of testing 3 months 6 months — — — 3 months* Oxygen (%) 19.5–23.5 — 19.5–23.5 20–22 19.5–23.5 19.5–23.5 Carbon dioxide (ppm) ≤ 1,000 ≤ 1,000 ≤ 1,000 ≤ 1,000 ≤ 1,000 ≤ 1,000§§ Carbon monoxide (ppm) ≤ 10 ≤ 10 ≤ 10 ≤ 10 ≤ 10 ≤ 5 Hydrocarbon content (ppm) — — — ≤ 25§ — ≤ 25‡ Nitrogen (%) — — — — — 75–81 Water (ppm) ≤ 24 ≤ 67 ≤ 24 A A Water (dew point °F) -65° — -50° -65° Particulate & Oil (mg/m3) ≤ 5¶ ≤ 5# ≤ 5¶ ≤ 5¶ ≤ 5¶ ≤ 2 Odor** None None None None None None * Additional requirements: test after alterations, maintenance, repairs, or relocation of any breathing air system or system part; within one week prior to filter replacement; when contamination of system, storage, or when SCBA cylinder is suspected. ‡ Non-methane volatile organic compounds expressed as methane. § Total expressed as methane. ¶ Oil (condensed) only. # Oil mist only. ** The standards and regulations are worded slightly differently but essentially all require that the air shall be free of any pronounced, objectionable, or noxious odor. §§ Levels > 500 ppm should be investigated. A For SCBA operations, a dew point ≤ -65° F or 10° F lower than the coldest temperature expected in the area is required. 2 Breathing Air Quality, Sampling, and Testing After working with fire department clients, EHL Gases in Firefighter Air determined that the main cause of higher than expected Seldom are any regulated gases found to be over the water concentrations was water contamination of the regulatory limit in a properly maintained breathing air sample containers, which in this case were SCBA bottles. generation system. During 2009–2010 no samples of When extensively dried through repeated flushing with breathing air had gas contaminants above regulatory dry breathing air, contribution to water concentration limits (Figure 2). Oxygen in submitted samples has from the bottles became negligible; those breathing air always been within regulatory limits. samples were then able to meet the water vapor concen- tration specification in the statute. Gases in Diving Air EHL examined a commercial breathing air test kit Carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide each had a failure and found that the kit’s sample container leaked. When rate of 1% in tested breathing air samples (Figure 3). a leak-free sample container containing room air with a The majority of breathing air samples from commercial water concentration of approximately 30,000 ppm was diving came from air compressors powered by an engine, submitted to the commercial lab associated with the kit exhaust from which was likely the cause of elevated val- for testing, water vapor concentration passed the 24 ppm ues. Oxygen in submitted samples has only failed when specification. Inappropriate laboratory methodology was elevated levels are present in oxygen enriched gas mix- likely the cause of this erroneous result. tures such as Nitrox. Most submissions of breathing air samples to the EHL pass the water vapor specification (solid line in Odor in Firefighter Air Figure 1). The dashed line represents the standard with One percent of firefighting samples tested failed due to the NFPA measurement tolerance added; values to the a pronounced odor (Figure 4). Ten percent had a slight left of this line would pass. The highest values were ob- odor, which was typically described as stale. tained from samples knowingly submitted in wet bottles. 40 35 88% 12% 30 25 20 15 Frequency 10 5 0 0 8 16 24 32 40 48 56 64 72 80 88 96 More Water (ppm) Figure 1. Water vapor results, 2009-2010 SCBA 3 University of Washington Environmental Health Laboratory 50 Atmospheric concentration 45 40 1,000 ppm standard 35 30 25 20 Frequency 15 10 5 0 20 100 180 260 340 420 500 580 660 740 820 900 980 Carbon Dioxide (ppm) 160 5 ppm 140 standard 120 100 80 60 Frequency 40 20 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More Carbon Monoxide (ppm) 80 70 60 50 40 30 Frequency 20 10 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More Total Hydrocarbons (ppm) Figure 2. Gas analyses, 2009–2010 SCBA 4 Breathing Air Quality, Sampling, and Testing 50 Atmospheric concentration 45 40 35 1,000 ppm standard 30 25 20 Frequency 99% 15 10 5 0 20 100 180 260 340 420 500 580 660 740 820 900 980 Carbon Dioxide (ppm) 250 10 ppm 200 standard 150 100 Frequency 50 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 More Carbon Monoxide (ppm) 180 160 140 120 100 80 Frequency 60 40 20 0 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 More Total Hydrocarbons (ppm) Figure 3. Gas analyses, 2009–2010 Diving 5 University of Washington Environmental Health Laboratory Firefighting Diving 1% 1% 15% 33% 66% 84% None Slight Pronounced None Slight Pronounced Figure 4. Odor results, 2009–2010 Odor in Diving Air One percent of diving samples failed due to a pro- for surfaces unless they have been specially treated to nounced odor (Figure 4). The odors were described as make them water-repellent. Aluminum and fluorocarbon musty, vegetable, rubber, exhaust, and moldy. Thirty- plastics such as Teflon do not perform as well as stainless three percent of the diving samples had a slight odor. steel, and glass is one of the worst materials for water Air from compressors operating in marine or outdoor contamination. Also, more water is retained on rougher environments appears to have more odors than air from surfaces. a dry, indoor fire department setting. Sample container leaks are another possible source of water contamination. Given that room air contains Why is water a problem in collecting a around 30,000 ppm (3%) water, a small leak will alter breathing air sample? a dry air sample with a water concentration of 10–30 Water is a “sticky” molecule and easily forms an invis- ppm. Samples at low pressure are more affected by ible molecular film on surfaces. The absence of visible water contamination problems, because at high pressures