1 / 27

Analysis of Particulate Contamination in Personal Dust Monitor Sampling

Analysis of Particulate Contamination in Personal Dust Monitor Sampling. Jon C. Volkwein June 10, 2008 12 th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium, Reno, NV. Background. Personal Dust Monitor developed by R&P - PDM

orla-greene
Télécharger la présentation

Analysis of Particulate Contamination in Personal Dust Monitor Sampling

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Analysis of Particulate Contamination in Personal Dust Monitor Sampling Jon C. Volkwein June 10, 2008 12th U.S./North American Mine Ventilation Symposium, Reno, NV

  2. Background • Personal Dust Monitor developed by R&P - PDM • Extensive testing by NIOSH demonstrated accuracy in lab and underground • Commercialized by Thermo Fisher Scientific • Currently undergoing approval by MSHA IS certification • Release by year end • Understanding new monitor versus old sampling method raised questions

  3. Oversize Particles • MSHA allows 30 particles > 10 µm over 0.25 mm2 (~0.1 mg) • Greater numbers are grounds to void sample • Presumed sources with current sampler • Sampler misassembly • Dumped cyclones • Sample mishandle

  4. Oversize on PDM filters minimized • No disassembly of critical cyclone components • HD cyclone is remote from filter and dump resistant • Automatic self-zero and mass measurement helps minimize mass error • Possible sources of oversize on filters • Contamination – Not counted in EOS exposure data • Before sampling • Post sampling • During sampling • During 30 min. warm-up – Not counted in EOS exposure data • During sampling • Penetration through cyclone • Internal contamination • Carry over from cyclone grit pot

  5. Penetration through cyclone

  6. Penetration through cyclone

  7. Penetration through cyclone • Small but finite fraction greater than 10 µm • Properly operated cyclones are efficient and performance is well defined • Cyclones have been used for past 35 years • Unlikely source of oversize particulates

  8. 3-5µm stage 35µm Example of large ECD low density particle collected as respirable particle ECD

  9. Cleaning procedures as source of internal contamination? • RI 9669 discussed a bias or loss of ~ 6% through the instrument transitions and heater assembly. • Does dry cleaning process remove this material? • Remove filter • Remove grit pot • Use compressed air to blow through all sample path openings

  10. Internal contamination • Contaminants from inlet tubing to cyclone must pass through cyclone and be sized • Contaminants between the cyclone and filter- transition and heater zone possible Cyclone

  11. Internal contamination • To test – needed “contaminated” PDMs • Retrieved 9 PDMs used in another test • Cleaned with normal routine for ~ 20 shifts • Placed a HEPA filter on inlet • Placed a clean - microscope counted filter • Ran for 25 min warm-up • Placed a second clean counted filter and sampled for 8 hours while PDM was in motion • Examined PDM reported mass

  12. Internal contaminationContinuously moved samplers

  13. Re-entrainment results from 8 hour shake test

  14. Internal contamination MSHA unit 116 • Used by inspectors in District 7 • Had some diesel exposure • Run on NIOSH apparatus • Mass gain 0.008 mg • 240 OSP in 34 fields

  15. Internal contamination review • Microscopic observation indicates no significant particulate comes from internal surfaces • Mass is below limit of detection • Anecdotal evidence of low density OSP agglomerates in MSHA sample – mass below limit of detection

  16. Carry over from cyclone grit pot -AKA Cyclone dumping • Act of inverting the cyclone such that oversize particles captured in the cyclone grit pot reenter the sampling air stream and become deposited on the filter. • Recommendation that Dorr-Oliver cyclone not be inverted beyond 120o • Detected by filter observation.

  17. Dumping test • PDM and DO cyclones • Place 2 g of 20 µm glass spheres in cyclone grit pot • Invert during sampling 40 times about 2 axes • Examine filters with microscope

  18. Carry over from cyclone grit potPDM results

  19. Example of glass beads Pre-test PDM filter Post-test PDM filter NIOSH test of dumping from cyclone grit pot

  20. Carry over from cyclone grit potMSA filter results

  21. Microscopic evaluation of past field samples for oversize • Filters from prototype PDM sampling from JWR and Deer Creek were preserved • Side-by-side PDM and gravimetric samples taken from adjacent sides of cap light. • Filters retrieved and sent to MSHA for microscopic oversize evaluation • ~ 200 hours of routine cleaning

  22. Past field sample oversize counts

  23. Filter appearance with measured amounts of dust mass Blank 0.009 mg 0.034 mg 0.026 mg

  24. Oversize conclusion • Occasional oversize particles on PDM filters detected. • Mass from oversize < detectable limit • Were not able to induce cyclone dump • Past field samples did not contain oversize • Quantity of respirable dust to exceed detectable limit is substantial.

  25. Cleaning conclusion • Deposits on internal sample flow path observed • Sources -- Impact of internal deposits – After an average of 437 hours of underground use and routine cleaning, PDM lab testing verified that instruments retained original accuracy (RI 9669) • Hinds (1982) Aerosol Technology – “particle attachment to surfaces is proportional to the particle diameter (d), while removal forces are proportional to d3” • Particles less than 10µm in size are not likely to be removed by common forces such a vibration or sampling air flows • Layers of larger agglomerated particles may be released • NIOSH procedures clean the agglomerates while leaving the more tightly bound respirable sized particulates

  26. Cleaning conclusion (cont) • In practice, current cleaning procedures are adequate and samples are within normal sampling variance • Cannot, however, guarantee that one respirable particle from a previous sample does not deposit on the next sample. • This data demonstrated that if respirable particles are released, their mass is less than the detectable limit of the instrument and would be part of previously determined sampling error. • Verified in original report and by this work that field cleaned instruments do not cause error greater than documented instrument error.

  27. ? Jon Volkwein 412-386-6689 jvolkwein@cdc.gov

More Related