Testing of High Flow Rate Respirable Samplers to Assess the Technical Feasibility of Measuring 0.05 Mg.M-3 Respirable Crystalline Silica
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Health and Safety Executive Testing of high flow rate respirable samplers to assess the technical feasibility of measuring 0.05 mg.m-3 respirable crystalline silica Prepared by the Health and Safety Laboratory for the Health and Safety Executive 2010 RR825 Research Report Health and Safety Executive Testing of high flow rate respirable samplers to assess the technical feasibility of measuring 0.05 mg.m-3 respirable crystalline silica Peter Stacey and Andrew Thorpe Health and Safety Laboratory Harpur Hill Buxton Derbyshire SK17 9JN Testing of high flow rate samplers to assess the technical feasibility of measuring 0.05 mg.m-3 respirable crystalline silica. This report describes testing of five personal respirable dust samplers operating with flow rates of 4 l/min or greater, available in 2008. Three were commercially available, one a prototype and one adapted at HSL to operate at a higher flow rate. Testing compared these samplers with a reference sampler, operating at 2.2 l/min, to ascertain if an increase in the mass of dust sampled could improve the reliability of measurements of respirable crystalline silica (RCS). None of the samplers satisfied all of the success criteria for the project, which included, the ability to maintain the specified flow rate over 4-hours, ease of use in the workplace, and an improvement in the measurement precision without additional complications caused by the increased mass of sampled dust. Infrared analysis is not recommended for samples with dust mixtures, because it was difficult to obtain a reliable result when the loading exceeds 1 mg. The samplers with the best performance were the PGP10 and the modified GK2.69 samplers. The other samplers tested either under-sampled or there was lost sample during transfer onto the analysis filter. When field tests were conducted, air sampling pumps operating with the modified GK2.69 samplers failed to maintain a consistent flow rate, and the PGP 10 samplers were heavy and caused discomfort for the workers The report recommends the use of the PGP 10 and GK2.69 samplers after further work to resolve the minor issues and changes in the sampling and measurement strategies to accommodate new procedures for use of higher flow rate samplers. This report and the work it describes were funded by the Health and Safety Executive (HSE). Its contents, including any opinions and/or conclusions expressed, are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect HSE policy. HSE Books © Crown copyright 2010 First published 2010 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the prior written permission of the copyright owner. Applications for reproduction should be made in writing to: Licensing Division, Her Majesty’s Stationery Office, St Clements House, 2-16 Colegate, Norwich NR3 1BQ or by e-mail to [email protected] ii CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................... 1 1.1 Background ............................................................................................. 1 1.2 Principles of the analysis techniques....................................................... 1 2 STAGE 1: SELECTION OF EQUIPMENT INCLUDED IN THE STUDY..... 4 2.1 Selection of Samplers.............................................................................. 4 2.2 Selection of filters .................................................................................... 4 2.3 Selection of sampling trains..................................................................... 4 3 CALIBRATIONS ....................................................................................... 10 3.1 Calibrations for x-ray diffraction ............................................................. 10 3.2 Calibrations for infrared analysis ........................................................... 10 3.3 Discussion ............................................................................................. 10 4 STAGE 2B: ABSORPTION AND DEPTH EXPERIMENTS...................... 12 4.1 Evaluation of absorption and depth effects in x-ray diffraction analysis. 12 4.2 Evaluation of the effect of absorption on FTIR analysis......................... 20 5 STAGE 3: ASSESSMENT OF THE BIAS OF SAMPLERS...................... 23 5.1 Sampling tests with Arizona road dust................................................... 23 5.2 Gravimetric Analysis.............................................................................. 24 5.3 RCS Analysis by X-ray Diffraction ......................................................... 25 5.4 RCS Analysis by Direct on Filter Infrared Analysis ................................ 26 5.5 Recovery for the PGP 10 cyclone using cellulose nitrate filters............. 27 6 STAGE 4: ASSESSMENT OF BIAS OF ANALYTICAL TECHNIQUES .. 29 6.1 Workplace tasks examined.................................................................... 29 6.2 Particle SIZE distribution of the generated aerosol................................ 30 6.3 Gravimetric analysis .............................................................................. 30 6.4 X-ray Diffraction analysis ....................................................................... 33 7 FIELD TRIALS.......................................................................................... 36 7.1 Approach ............................................................................................... 36 7.2 Analytical Results .................................................................................. 36 7.3 Practical experience .............................................................................. 39 7.4 Comments recorded from the Workers.................................................. 39 8 OVERALL PERFORMANCE OF SAMPLERS ......................................... 44 8.1 Modified GK 2.69 cyclone...................................................................... 44 8.2 IOM sampler with foam separator.......................................................... 44 8.3 IPP Impactor.......................................................................................... 44 8.4 PGP 10 Cyclone .................................................................................... 45 8.5 CIP 10 SAMPLER ................................................................................. 45 -3 9 PRECISION OF XRD MEASUREMENTS AT 0.05 MG.M ...................... 46 iii 10 PROJECT SUCCESS CRITERIA.......................................................... 49 11 REFERENCES ...................................................................................... 52 12 APPENDIX 1: PRESSURE DROP WITH FLOW RATE ACROSS AN MIXED CELLULOSE ESTER FILTER............................................................. 54 13 APPENDIX 2: INSTRUMENTAL PARAMETERS................................. 56 13.1 X-ray Diffraction..................................................................................... 56 13.2 FTIR....................................................................................................... 56 14 APPENDIX 3: CALIBRATIONS FOR X-RAY DIFFRACTION .............. 57 14.1 SIMPEDS Calibrations........................................................................... 57 14.2 GK 2.69 cyclone Calibrations ................................................................ 57 14.3 IOM sampler wih foam separator........................................................... 58 15 APPENDIX 4: CALIBRATION FOR THE INDIRECT ANALYSIS PROCEDURE ..................................................................................................59 16 APPENDIX 5: CALIBRATIONS FOR INFRARED – DIRECT ON-FILTER ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 60 16.1 SIMPEDS .............................................................................................. 60 16.2 GK 2.69 cyclone .................................................................................... 60 16.3 IOM sampler with foam separator.......................................................... 61 17 APPENDIX 6: CALIBRATIONSii FOR INFRARED – INDIRECT ANALYSIS ....................................................................................................... 62 18 APPENDIX 7: XRD SCANS OF ABSORPTION TEST MATERIALS ... 64 19 APPENDIX 8: INFRA RED ABSORNACES ......................................... 67 20 APPENDIX 9: PARTICLE SIZE DISTRIBUTIONS FROM SIMULATED WORK TASKS................................................................................................. 69 21 APPENDIX 10: GRAVIMETRIC ANALYSIS WITH SIMULATED WORK ACTIVITIES...................................................................................................... 71 22 APPENDIX 11. DUST LOSSES FROM PVC FILTERS ........................ 72 23 APPENDIX 12: STAGE 4 XRD COMPARISON WITH SIMPEDS ........ 75 24 APPENDIX 13 STAGE 4: COMPARISON WITH PGP 10 CYCLONES 77 25 SITE 1: FOUNDRY VISIT...................................................................... 79 26 SITE 2: POT/BRICK MANUFACTURE ................................................. 94 27 SITE 3: CERAMICS MANUFACTURE................................................ 105 28 SITE 4 CONSTRUCTION.................................................................... 115 iv 29 SITE 5: QUARRY VISIT...................................................................... 123