Lee Eun Gyung, Magrm Rana, Kusti Mohannad, Kashon Michael L, Guffey Steven, Costas Michelle M, Boykin Carie J, Harper Martin
a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), Health Effects Laboratory Division (HELD), Exposure Assessment Branch , Morgantown , West Virginia.
b Industrial and Management Systems Engineering, West Virginia University , Morgantown , West Virginia.
J Occup Environ Hyg. 2017 Jan;14(1):31-39. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1211284.
This study was to determine occupational exposures to formaldehyde and to compare concentrations of formaldehyde obtained by active and passive sampling methods. In one pathology and one histology laboratories, exposure measurements were collected with sets of active air samplers (Supelco LpDNPH tubes) and passive badges (ChemDisk Aldehyde Monitor 571). Sixty-six sample pairs (49 personal and 17 area) were collected and analyzed by NIOSH NMAM 2016 for active samples and OSHA Method 1007 (using the manufacturer's updated uptake rate) for passive samples. All active and passive 8-hr time-weighted average (TWA) measurements showed compliance with the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL-0.75 ppm) except for one passive measurement, whereas 78% for the active and 88% for the passive samples exceeded the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL-0.016 ppm). Overall, 73% of the passive samples showed higher concentrations than the active samples and a statistical test indicated disagreement between two methods for all data and for data without outliers. The OSHA Method cautions that passive samplers should not be used for sampling situations involving formalin solutions because of low concentration estimates in the presence of reaction products of formaldehyde and methanol (a formalin additive). However, this situation was not observed, perhaps because the formalin solutions used in these laboratories included much less methanol (3%) than those tested in the OSHA Method (up to 15%). The passive samplers in general overestimated concentrations compared to the active method, which is prudent for demonstrating compliance with an occupational exposure limit, but occasional large differences may be a result of collecting aerosolized droplets or splashes on the face of the samplers. In the situations examined in this study the passive sampler generally produces higher results than the active sampler so that a body of results from passive samplers demonstrating compliance with the OSHA PEL would be a valid conclusion. However, individual passive samples can show lower results than a paired active sampler so that a single result should be treated with caution.
本研究旨在确定职业性甲醛暴露情况，并比较通过主动和被动采样方法获得的甲醛浓度。在一个病理学实验室和一个组织学实验室中，使用主动空气采样器（Supelco LpDNPH管）和被动徽章（ChemDisk醛监测仪571）收集暴露测量数据。共收集了66对样本（49个个人样本和17个区域样本），主动样本按照美国国家职业安全与健康研究所（NIOSH）2016年方法进行分析，被动样本按照美国职业安全与健康管理局（OSHA）方法1007（使用制造商更新后的摄取率）进行分析。除一次被动测量外，所有主动和被动8小时时间加权平均（TWA）测量结果均符合OSHA允许暴露限值（PEL - 0.75 ppm），而主动样本中有78%、被动样本中有88%超过了NIOSH推荐暴露限值（REL - 0.016 ppm）。总体而言，73%的被动样本显示出比主动样本更高的浓度，统计检验表明两种方法对于所有数据以及剔除异常值后的数据均存在差异。OSHA方法警告称，由于在甲醛与甲醇（一种福尔马林添加剂）的反应产物存在时浓度估计值较低，被动采样器不应在涉及福尔马林溶液的采样情况下使用。然而，本研究中未观察到这种情况，可能是因为这些实验室使用的福尔马林溶液中甲醇含量（3%）远低于OSHA方法测试中使用的含量（高达15%）。与主动方法相比，被动采样器通常会高估浓度，这对于证明符合职业暴露限值而言是谨慎的做法，但偶尔出现的较大差异可能是由于采样器表面收集到雾化液滴或飞溅物所致。在本研究考察的情况下，被动采样器通常比主动采样器产生更高的结果，因此来自被动采样器的一系列证明符合OSHA PEL的结果将是一个有效的结论。然而，单个被动样本可能显示出比配对的主动采样器更低的结果，因此对于单个结果应谨慎对待。
