Boiano J M, Wallace M E, Sieber W K, Groff J H, Wang J, Ashley K
US Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA.
J Environ Monit. 2000 Aug;2(4):329-33. doi: 10.1039/b002456m.
A field study was conducted with the goal of comparing the performance of three recently developed or modified sampling and analytical methods for the determination of airborne hexavalent chromium (Cr(VI)). The study was carried out in a hard chrome electroplating facility and in a jet engine manufacturing facility where airborne Cr(VI) was expected to be present. The analytical methods evaluated included two laboratory-based procedures (OSHA Method ID-215 and NIOSH Method 7605) and a field-portable method (NIOSH Method 7703). These three methods employ an identical sampling methodology: collection of Cr(VI)-containing aerosol on a polyvinyl chloride (PVC) filter housed in a sampling cassette, which is connected to a personal sampling pump calibrated at an appropriate flow rate. The basis of the analytical methods for all three methods involves extraction of the PVC filter in alkaline buffer solution, chemical isolation of the Cr(VI) ion, complexation of the Cr(VI) ion with 1,5-diphenylcarbazide, and spectrometric measurement of the violet chromium diphenylcarbazone complex at 540 nm. However, there are notable specific differences within the sample preparation procedures used in three methods. To assess the comparability of the three measurement protocols, a total of 20 side-by-side air samples were collected, equally divided between a chromic acid electroplating operation and a spray paint operation where water soluble forms of Cr(VI) were used. A range of Cr(VI) concentrations from 0.6 to 960 microg m(-3), with Cr(VI) mass loadings ranging from 0.4 to 32 microg, was measured at the two operations. The equivalence of the means of the log-transformed Cr(VI) concentrations obtained from the different analytical methods was compared. Based on analysis of variance (ANOVA) results, no statistically significant differences were observed between mean values measured using each of the three methods. Small but statistically significant differences were observed between results obtained from performance evaluation samples for the NIOSH field method and the OSHA laboratory method.
开展了一项实地研究，目的是比较三种最近开发或改进的用于测定空气中六价铬（Cr(VI)）的采样和分析方法的性能。该研究在一家硬铬电镀工厂和一家喷气发动机制造工厂进行，预计这两个工厂存在空气中的Cr(VI)。评估的分析方法包括两种基于实验室的程序（OSHA方法ID-215和NIOSH方法7605）以及一种现场便携式方法（NIOSH方法7703）。这三种方法采用相同的采样方法：将含Cr(VI)的气溶胶收集在置于采样盒中的聚氯乙烯（PVC）滤膜上，采样盒连接到以适当流速校准的个人采样泵。所有这三种方法的分析方法基础都包括在碱性缓冲溶液中萃取PVC滤膜、化学分离Cr(VI)离子、使Cr(VI)离子与1,5-二苯基卡巴肼络合以及在540 nm处对紫色铬二苯基卡巴腙络合物进行光谱测量。然而，这三种方法所使用的样品制备程序存在显著的具体差异。为了评估这三种测量方案的可比性，总共采集了20对并列空气样本，在铬酸电镀操作和使用水溶性Cr(VI)形式的喷漆操作之间平均分配。在这两项操作中测量到的Cr(VI)浓度范围为0.6至960 μg m(-3)，Cr(VI)质量负荷范围为0.4至32 μg。比较了从不同分析方法获得的对数转换后的Cr(VI)浓度均值的等效性。基于方差分析（ANOVA）结果，未观察到使用这三种方法中的每一种所测量的均值之间存在统计学上的显著差异。在NIOSH现场方法和OSHA实验室方法的性能评估样本结果之间观察到了微小但具有统计学意义的差异。
