Ramachandran Gurumurthy, Watts Winthrop F
Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Mayo Mail Code 807, 420 Delaware St. S.E., Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA.
AIHA J (Fairfax, Va). 2003 May-Jun;64(3):329-37. doi: 10.1080/15428110308984824.
Four methods are used to quantify diesel particulate matter (DPM) in the mine environment: respirable combustible dust sampling (RCD), size selective sampling with gravimetric analysis (SSG), respirable dust sampling with elemental carbon (EC) analysis, and respirable dust sampling with total carbon (TC) analysis. The authors assembled data from three underground mine studies to statistically compare these methods. The sampling protocol used in each study was similar. For all the four methods, samples were collected in triplicate at three locations-upwind and downwind of the diesel scoop and on the scoop. The methods were compared with respect to their precision, selectivity, sensitivity, and LOD, as well as their limitations in measuring DPM concentrations. This constitutes a meta-analysis of the available data and provides information over a broader range of mining conditions and DPM concentrations than any of the individual studies. The weighing imprecision for the SSG method is almost twice that for the RCD technique. The imprecision of the EC and TC methods are a function of the mass loading, and EC has a lower imprecision than TC. The EC method was used as the reference "gold standard" against which the other methods were evaluated. The RCD, SSG, and TC methods exhibited substantial levels of interference, leading to much higher minimum concentrations that can be measured by these methods. Of the three, the SSG method has the highest level of interference, primarily from nondiesel material that is collected in the <0.8 microm size range.
有四种方法用于量化矿井环境中的柴油颗粒物（DPM）：可吸入可燃粉尘采样（RCD）、带重量分析的尺寸选择性采样（SSG）、带元素碳（EC）分析的可吸入粉尘采样以及带总碳（TC）分析的可吸入粉尘采样。作者收集了三项地下矿井研究的数据，以对这些方法进行统计比较。每项研究中使用的采样方案相似。对于所有这四种方法，在三个位置（柴油铲运机的上风和下风处以及铲运机上）重复采集三次样本。对这些方法在精度、选择性、灵敏度、检测限以及测量DPM浓度时的局限性方面进行了比较。这构成了对现有数据的荟萃分析，并提供了比任何单项研究更广泛的采矿条件和DPM浓度范围内的信息。SSG方法的称重不精确性几乎是RCD技术的两倍。EC和TC方法的不精确性是质量负荷的函数，且EC的不精确性低于TC。EC方法被用作评估其他方法的参考“金标准”。RCD、SSG和TC方法表现出相当程度的干扰，导致这些方法能够测量的最低浓度要高得多。在这三种方法中，SSG方法的干扰水平最高，主要来自在<0.8微米尺寸范围内收集的非柴油物质。
