Glaser Robert, Kurimo Robert, Shulman Stanley
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA. rag3@cdc,gov
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2007 Aug;4(8):583-95. doi: 10.1080/15459620701473281.
A performance test of NIOSH Method 5524/ASTM Method D-7049-04 for analysis of metalworking fluids (MWF) was conducted. These methods involve determination of the total and extractable weights of MWF samples; extractions are performed using a ternary blend of toluene:dichloromethane:methanol and a binary blend of methanol:water. Six laboratories participated in this study. A preliminary analysis of 20 blank samples was made to familiarize the laboratories with the procedure(s) and to estimate the methods' limits of detection/quantitation (LODs/LOQs). Synthetically generated samples of a semisynthetic MWF aerosol were then collected on tared polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) filters and analyzed according to the methods by all participants. Sample masses deposited (approximately 400-500 micro g) corresponded to amounts expected in an 8-hr shift at the NIOSH recommended exposure levels (REL) of 0.4 mg/m(3) (thoracic) and 0.5 mg/m(3) (total particulate). The generator output was monitored with a calibrated laser particle counter. One laboratory significantly underreported the sampled masses relative to the other five labs. A follow-up study compared only gravimetric results of this laboratory with those of two other labs. In the preliminary analysis of blanks; the average LOQs were 0.094 mg for the total weight analysis and 0.136 mg for the extracted weight analyses. For the six-lab study, the average LOQs were 0.064 mg for the total weight analyses and 0.067 mg for the extracted weight analyses. Using ASTM conventions, h and k statistics were computed to determine the degree of consistency of each laboratory with the others. One laboratory experienced problems with precision but not bias. The precision estimates for the remaining five labs were not different statistically (alpha = 0.005) for either the total or extractable weights. For all six labs, the average fraction extracted was > or =0.94 (CV = 0.025). Pooled estimates of the total coefficients of variation of analysis were 0.13 for the total weight samples and 0.13 for the extracted weight samples. An overall method bias of -5% was determined by comparing the overall mean concentration reported by the participants to that determined by the particle counter. In the three-lab follow-up study, the nonconsistent lab reported results that were unbiased but statistically less precise than the others; the average LOQ was 0.133 mg for the total weight analyses. It is concluded that aerosolized MWF sampled at concentrations corresponding to either of the NIOSH RELs can generally be shipped unrefrigerated, stored refrigerated up to 7 days, and then analyzed quantitatively and precisely for MWF using the NIOSH/ASTM procedures.
对用于分析金属加工液(MWF)的美国国家职业安全与健康研究所(NIOSH)方法5524/美国材料与试验协会(ASTM)方法D - 7049 - 04进行了性能测试。这些方法涉及测定MWF样品的总重量和可萃取重量;萃取使用甲苯:二氯甲烷:甲醇的三元混合物以及甲醇:水的二元混合物进行。六个实验室参与了本研究。对20个空白样品进行了初步分析,以使实验室熟悉该程序,并估计方法的检测限/定量限(LOD/LOQ)。然后,在已称重的聚四氟乙烯(PTFE)滤膜上收集合成产生的半合成MWF气溶胶样品,并由所有参与者按照这些方法进行分析。沉积的样品质量(约400 - 500微克)对应于在NIOSH推荐暴露水平(REL)为0.4毫克/立方米(胸部)和0.5毫克/立方米(总颗粒物)下8小时轮班时预期的量。用校准的激光粒子计数器监测发生器输出。与其他五个实验室相比,有一个实验室显著少报了采样质量。后续研究仅将该实验室的重量分析结果与另外两个实验室的结果进行了比较。在空白样品的初步分析中;总重量分析的平均LOQ为0.094毫克,萃取重量分析的平均LOQ为0.136毫克。对于六实验室研究,总重量分析的平均LOQ为0.064毫克,萃取重量分析的平均LOQ为0.067毫克。使用ASTM惯例,计算h和k统计量以确定每个实验室与其他实验室的一致程度。有一个实验室在精密度方面存在问题,但不存在偏差。其余五个实验室对于总重量或可萃取重量的精密度估计在统计学上没有差异(α = 0.005)。对于所有六个实验室,平均萃取分数≥0.94(CV = 0.025)。总重量样品分析的合并变异系数估计值为0.13,萃取重量样品分析的合并变异系数估计值为0.13。通过将参与者报告的总体平均浓度与粒子计数器测定的总体平均浓度进行比较,确定总体方法偏差为 - 5%。在三实验室后续研究中,不一致的实验室报告的结果无偏差,但在统计学上比其他实验室的结果精密度更低;总重量分析的平均LOQ为0.133毫克。得出的结论是,以对应于NIOSH任何一个REL的浓度采样的雾化MWF通常可以在不冷藏的情况下运输,冷藏保存7天,然后使用NIOSH/ASTM程序对MWF进行定量和精确分析。