Burton Kerrie A, Whitelaw Jane L, Jones Alison L, Davies Brian
School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia
School of Health and Society, University of Wollongong, Northfields Avenue, Wollongong, New South Wales 2522, Australia.
Ann Occup Hyg. 2016 Jul;60(6):771-9. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mew026. Epub 2016 May 17.
Diesel engines have been a mainstay within many industries since the early 1900s. Exposure to diesel particulate matter (DPM) is a major issue in many industrial workplaces given the potential for serious health impacts to exposed workers; including the potential for lung cancer and adverse irritant and cardiovascular effects. Personal respiratory protective devices are an accepted safety measure to mitigate worker exposure against the potentially damaging health impacts of DPM. To be protective, they need to act as effective filters against carbon and other particulates. In Australia, the filtering efficiency of respiratory protective devices is determined by challenging test filter media with aerosolised sodium chloride to determine penetration at designated flow rates. The methodology outlined in AS/NZS1716 (Standards Australia International Ltd and Standards New Zealand 2012. Respiratory protective devices. Sydney/Wellington: SAI Global Limited/Standards New Zealand) does not account for the differences between characteristics of workplace contaminants like DPM and sodium chloride such as structure, composition, and particle size. This study examined filtering efficiency for three commonly used AS/NZS certified respirator filter models, challenging them with two types of diesel emissions; those from a diesel generator and a diesel engine. Penetration through the filter media of elemental carbon (EC), total carbon (TC), and total suspended particulate (TSP) was calculated. Results indicate that filtering efficiency assumed by P2 certification in Australia was achieved for two of the three respirator models for DPM generated using the small diesel generator, whilst when the larger diesel engine was used, filtering efficiency requirements were met for all three filter models. These results suggest that the testing methodology specified for certification of personal respiratory protective devices by Standards Australia may not ensure adequate protection for respirator users against DPM under all circumstances of diesel generated particles.
自20世纪初以来，柴油发动机一直是许多行业的支柱。鉴于接触柴油颗粒物（DPM）可能对接触的工人产生严重健康影响，包括患肺癌的可能性以及刺激性和心血管方面的不良影响，在许多工业工作场所，接触柴油颗粒物是一个主要问题。个人呼吸防护设备是一种公认的安全措施，可减轻工人接触DPM对健康的潜在损害。为起到防护作用，它们需要作为有效的过滤器，过滤碳和其他颗粒物。在澳大利亚，呼吸防护设备的过滤效率是通过用雾化氯化钠对测试过滤介质进行挑战，以确定在指定流速下的穿透率来确定的。AS/NZS1716（澳大利亚国际标准有限公司和新西兰标准局，2012年。呼吸防护设备。悉尼/惠灵顿：SAI全球有限公司/新西兰标准局）中概述的方法没有考虑工作场所污染物（如DPM）和氯化钠在结构、成分和粒径等特征上的差异。本研究考察了三种常用的经AS/NZS认证的呼吸器过滤模型的过滤效率，用两种类型的柴油排放物对其进行挑战，这两种排放物分别来自柴油发电机和柴油发动机。计算了元素碳（EC）、总碳（TC）和总悬浮颗粒物（TSP）通过过滤介质的穿透率。结果表明，对于使用小型柴油发电机产生的DPM，三种呼吸器模型中的两种达到了澳大利亚P2认证所假定的过滤效率，而当使用大型柴油发动机时，所有三种过滤模型都满足了过滤效率要求。这些结果表明，澳大利亚标准规定的个人呼吸防护设备认证测试方法可能无法确保在柴油产生颗粒的所有情况下，呼吸器使用者都能得到足够的防护以抵御DPM。
