지원사업
학술연구/단체지원/교육 등 연구자 활동을 지속하도록 DBpia가 지원하고 있어요.
커뮤니티
연구자들이 자신의 연구와 전문성을 널리 알리고, 새로운 협력의 기회를 만들 수 있는 네트워킹 공간이에요.
이용수
초록· 키워드
오류제보하기
Objectives: The respirator is said to be the last resort in terms of protection against many fumes, but is widely used in occupational settings. The surrogate test aerosols used for the certification of particulate respirators (PRs) include sodium chloride (NaCl), dioctyl phthalate (DOP), and paraffin oil. The purposes of this study were to evaluate the differences of pressure drop and particle filtration efficiency between certified single type and certified dual type PRs using NaCl, surrogate particulate, and welding fumes, real hazardous particle.
Methods: Fifteen commercial PR products (nine single-type and six dual-type filters) were selected. The NIOSH protocol was used with the TSI Model 8130 automated filter tester for NaCl test and well-designed welding fume chamber was used with a SIBATA filter tester and a manometer for welding fume test. The initial pressure drop and initial penetration, peak pressure drop and peak penetration, penetration pattern and pressure drop pattern, quality factor were compared.
Results: The count median diameter (CMD) and mass median diameter (MMD) for the NaCl aerosol were small compared with the measured welding fumes (CMD; 70-80 vs. 170-240 nm, MMD; 200-300 vs. 500-700 nm, respectively). The ANOVA test showed no significant difference between the initial pressure drop of the tested aerosols when single or dual filters were used (p = 0.42), whereas the pressure drop at peak penetration was significantly higher with welding fumes than for the NaCl aerosol (p = 0.04). Also, pressure drop increased much more rapidly in the welding fume test than the NaCl aerosol test. The high initial penetration and peak penetration occurred with the NaCl aerosol and not the welding fumes (p = 0.03, p < 0.001, respectively). Neutralized NaCl aerosols were less likely to be captured by electret PR filter media than the untreated electrically charged welding fumes. The calculated quality factors of tested PRs ranged between 0.07 and 0.65 and there was no significant difference between the tested aerosols and filter types (p = 0.09).
Conclusion: Taken together, these findings suggest that PRs, which are suitable for NaCl certification, could also be used in workplace settings where welding fumes occur, albeit with caution, because of rapid pressure drop increases. This study has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of the penetration and pressure drop patterns of welding fume aerosols in the real workplace rather than for surrogate NaCl aerosols.
Methods: Fifteen commercial PR products (nine single-type and six dual-type filters) were selected. The NIOSH protocol was used with the TSI Model 8130 automated filter tester for NaCl test and well-designed welding fume chamber was used with a SIBATA filter tester and a manometer for welding fume test. The initial pressure drop and initial penetration, peak pressure drop and peak penetration, penetration pattern and pressure drop pattern, quality factor were compared.
Results: The count median diameter (CMD) and mass median diameter (MMD) for the NaCl aerosol were small compared with the measured welding fumes (CMD; 70-80 vs. 170-240 nm, MMD; 200-300 vs. 500-700 nm, respectively). The ANOVA test showed no significant difference between the initial pressure drop of the tested aerosols when single or dual filters were used (p = 0.42), whereas the pressure drop at peak penetration was significantly higher with welding fumes than for the NaCl aerosol (p = 0.04). Also, pressure drop increased much more rapidly in the welding fume test than the NaCl aerosol test. The high initial penetration and peak penetration occurred with the NaCl aerosol and not the welding fumes (p = 0.03, p < 0.001, respectively). Neutralized NaCl aerosols were less likely to be captured by electret PR filter media than the untreated electrically charged welding fumes. The calculated quality factors of tested PRs ranged between 0.07 and 0.65 and there was no significant difference between the tested aerosols and filter types (p = 0.09).
Conclusion: Taken together, these findings suggest that PRs, which are suitable for NaCl certification, could also be used in workplace settings where welding fumes occur, albeit with caution, because of rapid pressure drop increases. This study has gone some way towards enhancing our understanding of the penetration and pressure drop patterns of welding fume aerosols in the real workplace rather than for surrogate NaCl aerosols.
목차
Abstract
Introduction
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
References
참고문헌 (0)
참고문헌 신청이 논문의 저자 정보
최근 본 자료
댓글(0)
0
UCI(KEPA) : I410-ECN-0101-2016-517-000927685