Kauffer Edmond, Wrobel Richard, Görner Peter, Rott Christelle, Grzebyk Michel, Simon Xavier, Witschger Olivier
Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité, Rue du Morvan, CS 60027, 54519 Vandoeuvre les Nancy Cedex, France.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Mar;54(2):188-203. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mep078. Epub 2009 Dec 31.
Several samplers (IOM, CIP 10-I v1, ACCU-CAP, and Button) were evaluated at various wood industry companies using the CALTOOL system. The results obtained show that compared to the CALTOOL mouth, which can be considered to be representative of the exposure of a person placed at the same location under the same experimental conditions, the concentrations measured by the IOM, CIP 10-I v1, and ACCU-CAP samplers are not significantly different (respectively, 1.12, 0.94, and 0.80 compared to 1.00), the Button sampler (0.86) being close to the ACCU-CAP sampler. Comparisons of dust concentrations measured using both a closed-face cassette (CFC) and one of the above samplers were also made. In all, 235 sampling pairs (sampler + CFC) taken at six companies provided us with a comparison of concentrations measured using IOM, CIP 10-I v1, ACCU-CAP, and Button samplers with concentrations measured using a CFC. All the studied samplers collected systematically more dust than the CFC (2.0 times more for the IOM sampler, 1.84 times more for the CIP 10-I v1 sampler, 1.68 times more for the ACCU-CAP sampler, and 1.46 times more for the Button sampler). The literature most frequently compares the IOM sampler with the CFC: published results generally show larger differences compared with the CFC than those found during our research. There are several explanations for this difference, one of which involves CFC orientation during sampling. It has been shown that concentrations measured using a CFC are dependent on its orientation. Different CFC positions from one sampling session to another are therefore likely to cause differences during CFC-IOM sampler comparisons.
在多家木材工业公司使用CALTOOL系统对几种采样器（IOM、CIP 10-I v1、ACCU-CAP和Button）进行了评估。所得结果表明，与可被视为在相同实验条件下处于同一位置的人员暴露情况代表的CALTOOL口罩相比，IOM、CIP 10-I v1和ACCU-CAP采样器测得的浓度无显著差异（分别为1.12、0.94和0.80，而CALTOOL口罩为1.00），Button采样器（0.86）与ACCU-CAP采样器相近。还对使用封闭式采样盒（CFC）和上述采样器之一测得的粉尘浓度进行了比较。总共在六家公司采集了235对采样样本（采样器+CFC），为我们提供了使用IOM、CIP 10-I v1、ACCU-CAP和Button采样器测得的浓度与使用CFC测得的浓度的比较结果。所有研究的采样器系统地收集到的粉尘都比CFC多（IOM采样器多2.0倍，CIP 10-I v1采样器多1.84倍，ACCU-CAP采样器多1.68倍，Button采样器多1.46倍）。文献中最常将IOM采样器与CFC进行比较：已发表的结果通常显示与CFC的差异比我们研究中发现的更大。造成这种差异有多种解释，其中之一涉及采样期间CFC的方向。已经表明，使用CFC测得的浓度取决于其方向。因此，从一个采样时段到另一个采样时段CFC的不同位置可能会在CFC-IOM采样器比较期间导致差异。
