Skip Navigation

Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2008 52(1):55-62; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mem062
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 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 arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lee, E. G.
Right arrow Articles by Andrew, M. E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Lee, E. G.
Right arrow Articles by Andrew, M. E.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?


© The Author 2007. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society

A Comparison of the CATHIA-T Sampler, the GK2.69 Cyclone and the Standard Cowled Sampler for Thoracic Fiber Concentrations at a Taconite (Iron Ore)-Processing Mill

Eun Gyung Lee1,*, Martin Harper1, John Nelson1, Patrick J. Hintz2 and Michael E. Andrew3

1 Exposure Assessment Branch, Health Effects Laboratory Division (HELD), National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1095 Willowdale Road, MS-3030, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA
2 Spokane Research Laboratory, NIOSH, 315 E. Montgomery Avenue, Spokane, WA 99207, USA
3 Biostatistics and Epidemiology Branch, HELD, NIOSH, 1095 Willowdale Road, MS-4020, Morgantown, WV 26505, USA

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: 1-304-285-6146; fax: 1-304-285-6041; e-mail: elee2{at}cdc.gov

Several recommendations have been made to the effect that the most appropriate health-based size-selective criterion for fibers is the thoracic convention of the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). The performance of two thoracic samplers, the CATHIA-T (37-mm filter) and the GK2.69 cyclone (37-mm filter), was investigated against the standard 25-mm cowled sampler (current NIOSH 7400 standard method) to determine the effect of thoracic sampling on field results. A total of 270 samples: 80 field and 10 field blank samples for each sampler type, were taken from seven stations in the processing mill of an iron ore mine whose ore contains amphibole minerals. Slides were prepared using the dimethyl formamide/Euparal technique and relocatable cover slips. Two counters examined the slides according to NIOSH 7400 counting A rules with phase contrast microscopes. Prior to counting the sample slides, four reference slides were randomly selected and counted three times on different days to compare the coefficient of variation (CV) between and within counters. Also, seven reference slides were chosen to explore variability between the two microscopes. The average CV between counters (0.148) showed slightly higher than the average CVs within counters (0.072 for Counter 1 and 0.119 for Counter 2). The average CV between the two microscopes was 0.147. Compared to the standard cowled sampler, the overall fiber concentration was lower for the CATHIA-T sampler (CATHIA-T/Cowled = 0.63) and higher for the GK2.69 cyclone (GK2.69/Cowled = 1.66). The result for the CATHIA-T sampler is as expected from laboratory trials, but the result for the GK2.69 cyclone is not as expected. In conclusion, the CATHIA-T sampler has a potential advantage as a high-flow static sampler for screening coarse particles. However, these findings resulted from one field sampling site that contains amphibole minerals, not all of which are asbestiform. Thus, additional field samples from other environments might be helpful to confirm the performance of these samplers.

Keywords: aerosol samples • CATHIA • fibers • GK2.69 • NIOSH 7400 method • thoracic sampling

Received June 26, 2007; in final form October 17, 2007


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




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.