The application of diffusive sampling combined with thermal desorption in occupational exposure monitoring--field evaluation.

Yeh-Chung Chien, Li-Jue Wu, Jung-Hen Lwo
{"title":"The application of diffusive sampling combined with thermal desorption in occupational exposure monitoring--field evaluation.","authors":"Yeh-Chung Chien,&nbsp;Li-Jue Wu,&nbsp;Jung-Hen Lwo","doi":"10.1080/10473220301361","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Diffusive sampling combined with thermal desorption (DSTD) is considered useful in monitoring workers' exposures to organic vapors, not only due to its simplicity of operation in the field but, also, its simplifying the sample treatment, eliminating the use of extracting solvent, and increasing analytical sensitivity. Herein, the feasibility of applying DSTD in field conditions was assessed through a comparison of the results with those from the well-accepted active/charcoal method. Side-by-side active and diffusive (tube-type, Tenax TA as the adsorbent) samples, both personal and area, were collected and analyzed for xylenes, ethyl acetate, styrene, and n-butyl acetate in four different industrial settings. Statistically significant correlations were found between the two methods in personal samples with the correlation coefficients of 0.92, 0.90, 0.83, 0.88, and 0.97 for m&p-xylenes, o-xylene, n-butyl acetate, styrene, and ethyl acetate, respectively. A paired t-test revealed significant difference between the two methods for n-butyl acetate and styrene. For area sampling, statistical differences (p < 0.05) were found between the two methods, except for xylenes. The DSTD method had, mostly, a lower concentration than the active method, with the bias ranging from 10.2 to -54.4 percent. The possible causes for the discrepancies are discussed. These results suggest that though DSTD protocols can be considered as a simple approach for screening workers' exposures to volatile organics, they should be applied with caution since diffusive sampling is potentially affected by various environmental conditions and adsorptive characteristics.</p>","PeriodicalId":8182,"journal":{"name":"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene","volume":"18 5","pages":"368-73"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10473220301361","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10473220301361","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

Diffusive sampling combined with thermal desorption (DSTD) is considered useful in monitoring workers' exposures to organic vapors, not only due to its simplicity of operation in the field but, also, its simplifying the sample treatment, eliminating the use of extracting solvent, and increasing analytical sensitivity. Herein, the feasibility of applying DSTD in field conditions was assessed through a comparison of the results with those from the well-accepted active/charcoal method. Side-by-side active and diffusive (tube-type, Tenax TA as the adsorbent) samples, both personal and area, were collected and analyzed for xylenes, ethyl acetate, styrene, and n-butyl acetate in four different industrial settings. Statistically significant correlations were found between the two methods in personal samples with the correlation coefficients of 0.92, 0.90, 0.83, 0.88, and 0.97 for m&p-xylenes, o-xylene, n-butyl acetate, styrene, and ethyl acetate, respectively. A paired t-test revealed significant difference between the two methods for n-butyl acetate and styrene. For area sampling, statistical differences (p < 0.05) were found between the two methods, except for xylenes. The DSTD method had, mostly, a lower concentration than the active method, with the bias ranging from 10.2 to -54.4 percent. The possible causes for the discrepancies are discussed. These results suggest that though DSTD protocols can be considered as a simple approach for screening workers' exposures to volatile organics, they should be applied with caution since diffusive sampling is potentially affected by various environmental conditions and adsorptive characteristics.

扩散采样结合热解吸法在职业暴露监测中的应用——现场评价。
扩散取样结合热解吸(dsd)被认为对监测工人接触有机蒸汽很有用,不仅因为它在现场操作简单,而且它简化了样品处理,消除了提取溶剂的使用,提高了分析灵敏度。在此,通过将结果与公认的活性/木炭方法的结果进行比较,评估了在现场条件下应用DSTD的可行性。在四种不同的工业环境中,收集了个人和区域的并排活性和扩散(管型,Tenax TA作为吸附剂)样品,并分析了二甲苯、乙酸乙酯、苯乙烯和乙酸正丁酯。在个人样品中,两种方法的相关系数分别为0.92、0.90、0.83、0.88和0.97,分别为m&p-二甲苯、邻二甲苯、乙酸正丁酯、苯乙烯和乙酸乙酯。配对t检验表明,两种方法对乙酸正丁酯和苯乙烯的测定差异显著。在面积抽样中,除二甲苯外,两种方法间差异均有统计学意义(p < 0.05)。DSTD法的浓度大多低于活性法,偏差范围为10.2% ~ - 54.4%。讨论了产生差异的可能原因。这些结果表明,尽管DSTD方案可以被认为是筛选工人接触挥发性有机物的一种简单方法,但由于扩散取样可能受到各种环境条件和吸附特性的影响,因此应谨慎使用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信