Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Search for citing articles in:
ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by BRÅTVEIT, M.
Right arrow Articles by MÅLSNES, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by BRÅTVEIT, M.
Right arrow Articles by MÅLSNES, A.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 48, No. 2, pp. 159-170, 2004
© 2004 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press

Exposure to Sulfuric Acid in Zinc Production

MAGNE BRÅTVEIT1,*, INGER MARGRETHE HAALAND1, BENTE E. MOEN1 and AGNAR MÅLSNES2

1 University of Bergen, Section for Occupational Medicine, Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care, Kalfarveien 31, N-5018 Bergen; 2 Outokumpu Norzink AS, N-5750 Odda, Norway

Received 20 May 2003; in final form 28 August 2003

This study characterized workers’ exposure to sulfuric acid in two cell houses of a zinc production plant. We also aimed at estimating previous exposure to sulfuric acid by simulating the process conditions from before 1975 to produce exposure data for an epidemiological study on cancer in this industry. Further, we compared different sampling methods for aerosols in the cell houses. Personal sampling with a 37 mm Millipore cassette showed that the geometric means of the exposure levels for the workers in the two cell houses were 0.07 mg/m3 (range 0.01–0.48 mg/m3) and 0.04 mg/m3 (range 0.01–0.15 mg/m3). Norway’s newly revised limit value of 0.1 mg/m3 was exceeded in 39.0 and 12.9% of the samples in the two cell houses. After the foam layer was removed from the electrolyte surface to simulate the production process from before 1975, the concentration of sulfuric acid increased from 0.11 to 6.04 mg/m3 in stationary measurement by the Millipore sampler. Stationary sampling showed that the Millipore sampler and the inhalable fraction of the Respicon® impactor underestimated the sulfuric acid concentration by factors of 1.5 and 2.1 compared with the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) sampler. Sampling with the Respicon impactor showed that the respirable, tracheobronchial and extrathoracic fractions constituted 3.0, 18.7 and 71.7% of the inhalable sulfuric acid aerosol, respectively. Today’s exposure levels are lower than those reported to be associated with an increased prevalence of laryngeal cancer in other industries, but the levels prior to 1975 seem to have been much higher. By mass, most of the inhalable aerosol was in the size fractions considered to be highly relevant for the effects of sulfuric acid on the respiratory system. The risk of cancer among the cell house workers should be investigated in an epidemiological study.

Keywords: acid mist; acid aerosol; exposure assessment; Respicon; sulfuric acid; zinc


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
D. H. BROUWER, I. H. M. LINKS, S. A. F. DE VREEDE, and Y. CHRISTOPHER
Size Selective Dustiness and Exposure; Simulated Workplace Comparisons
Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2006; 50(5): 445 - 452.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
J. MWAISELAGE, M. BRATVEIT, B. MOEN, and M. YOST
Variability in Dust Exposure in a Cement Factory in Tanzania
Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2005; 49(6): 511 - 519.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]



Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.