Document jmgnOjpwnZ0eX52q98qGx97OO

OCT 18 1902 Acorn Park Cambridge, Massachusetts 02140 617 864-5770 Tele* 921436 /ti Arthur D. Little, Inc October 12, 1982 Mr. James Kuikstad 3M Center Building 220 - 7W St. Paul, MN 55144 Dear Mr. Kuikstad: Enclosed is a copy of the slides for my presenta tion of "Acceptance or Diffusion Dosimeters Among Industrial Hygienists', at the Cincinnati AIHA meeting in June. If you have any pestions regarding this material please don't hesitate so contact me. Sincere! ERH:w Enc. E. Robinson Hoyle Brussels Houston London Madrid Paris Rio de Janeiro San Francisco Sao Paulo Tokyo Toronto Washington Wiesbaden 3M 105965 DIFFUSION DOSIMETER USER SURVEY Presented by R.S. Strlcoff and E.R. Hoyle Arthur D. Little, Inc. Cambridge, MA 02140 3M 105966 PRINCIPLE OF PASSIVE DOSIMETERS 1. Contaminant enters dosimeter by diffusion and/or permeation. The diffusional sampling rate is defined by Fick's First Law of Diffusion or: W = DA/L (C-C0)t if C0 - 0 w = Weight of contaminant c = Concentration t = Sampling time D = Diffusional coefficient A = Geometric area of chamber L = Geometric length of chamber 3M 105967 PRINCIPLE OF PASSIVE DOSIMETERS 2. Adsorbed onto activated charcoal 3. Solvent desorbed and analyzed 4. Exposure time and concentration determined amount adsorbed 3M 105968 TYPES OF AVAILABLE DIFFUSION DOSIMETERS Organic Vapors Nitrogen Dioxide Formaldehyde Carbon Monoxide Chlorine 3M, DuPont, MSA, NMS DuPont, MDA, Leak-Tec DuPont, 3M 3M, Leak-Tec Span, Leak-Tec ADVANTAGES OF PASSIVE DOSIMETERS 1. Small and lightweight (e.g., improved wearer acceptance) 2. No calibration or maintenance (e.g., recharging batteries, etc.) 3. Little training necessary for sampling personnel 4. Easy for I.H. to sample large population for exposures 3M 105970 Stricoff, R.S. and C. Summers, An Evaluation of Organic Vapor Passive Dosimeters Under Field Use Conditions, 1980. 3M-OVM and Abcor differed slightly from charcoal tubes at low contaminant concentrate loadings and for short durations. Hickey, J.S. and C.C. Bishop, Field Comparison of Charcoal Tubes and Passive Vapor Monitors with Mixed Organic Vapors, 1981. "...reliably assayed low concentrations of mixed vapors of 20 of the chemicals mentioned equally as well as charcoal tubes, under the conditions encountered." 3M 105972 Jeannot, P.M., B.G. Ward, and D.M. Quick, A Laboratory and Field Study of Commercially Available Passive Dosimeters for Organic Vapors, 1981. Found a 10-17% variation between their field and iaboratory data and a manufacturer's laboratory data. "...that there remains an unexplained bias in the performance of these devices." CONCLUSIONS FROM CURRENT LITERATURE' The existing field and laboratory data are incomplete (e.g., experimental derivation of diffusion coefficients). Very little negative data to discourage potential dosimeter users. 3H 105974 OBJECTIVES OF USER SURVEY Evaluate diffusion dosimeters' usage patterns in industry. Diffusion dosimeters' significance with respect to the industrial hygienist's routine air sampling protocol. 3M 105975 SURVEY POPULATION -- INDUSTRIAL HYGIENISTS Certified by the American Board of Industrial Hygiene. Employed in fields other than government, consulting, academic and insurance. 3M 105976 Survey Population Survey Response 640 211 (33%) 3H 105977 JOB DESCRIPTION Corporate level I.H. Division level I.H. Location level I.H. Other 51% 28% 16% 5% 3M 105978 INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION Chemical Primary Metal Electrical/Electronic Fabricated Metal Petroleum Rubber/Plastic 32.7% 10.4% 9.4% 6.2% 5.2% 5.2% 3H 105979 LOCATIONS RESPONDENTS PROVIDED I.H. SERVICE < 10 10-24 25-49 50-99 100 + 44% 20% 13% 9% 14% 3M 105980 DOSIMETER USE Organic (charcoal based) Inorganic (non-charcoal based) 75.8% 39.8% ORGANIC DOSIMETER USE (75.8%) BY NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES < 100 100-799 800-1,999 2,000-3,999 4,000-7,999 8,000-14,999 15,000 + 1.3% 4.4% 11.9% 15.6% 18.1% 11.9% 36.9% 3M 1059S2 Have you tested organic dosimeters in the laboratory? YES 68.8% NO 31.2% 70.0% Acceptable 30.0% Inadequate 1^ 3M 1059S3 Indicate your experience with field tests of organic vapor diffusion dosimeters. Adequate 56.2% Inadequate or Inconclusive 33.0% 3H 105984 LABORATORY TESTS VS FIELD TESTS Laboratory Test Results Acceptable Worth Field Test Field Test Results Acceptable Inadequate 42 (70.0) 0 (0.0) 42 15 (25.0) 3 (5.0) 18 57 3 60 3H 105985 Do you routinely use organic vapor diffusion dosimeters for sampling? Benzene Acrylonitrile Chlorinated Hydrocarbon (solvents) Aromatic Hydrocoolant 37% 11% 54% 64% 3M 105986 Do you follow-up high levels measured on organic vapor diffusion badges with charcoal tube and sampling pump? Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never 23.7% 19.4% 25.0% 8.7% 10.0% 3M 105987 Which one of the following statements best expresses your opinion of the value of organic vapor diffusion dosimeters? Reliable and useful 46.9% Reliable, but reluctant to use until OSHA/NIOSH approval 25.6% Undecided 18.7% Unreliable 6.9% 3M 105988 Which one of the following statements best expresses your opinion of the value of inorganic vapor diffusion dosimeters? Some unreliable, some reliable 33.3% Reliable and useful 26.1% Undecided 25.0% Reliable, but reluctant to use until OSHA/NIOSH approval 8.3% Unreliable 3.6% 3M 105989 Do you follow-up high levels measured on inorganic vapor diffusion samples with confirmatory sampling by another method? Always Usually Sometimes Rarely Never 11.9% 20.2% 21.4% 14.3% 15.9% 3M J05990 CONCLUSIONS Diffusion dosimeters have been widely tested by certified industrial hygienists. Diffusion dosimeters are generally accepted to evaluate the work environment. However, the respondents did not rely exclusively upon diffusion dosimeters, with the majority using other methods to confirm exceptional dosimeter results.