Kring E V, Henry T J, Damrell D J, Bythewood T K
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1983 Dec;44(12):929-36. doi: 10.1080/15298668391405968.
The purpose of this test was to establish the relative response of Du Pont Pro-Tek C-20 SO2 air monitoring badges with NIOSH Physical and Chemical Analytical Methods (P&CAM S308 and 160) in field tests at a steel mill blast furnace area during normal slag release operations. No significant difference was found at the 95% confidence level between the badges and P&CAM S308. The correlation coefficient between the badges and P&CAM S308 was 0.996. The NIOSH P&CAM 160 gave considerably lower results in the field. Exposures ranged from 6.3 to 35.4 ppm airborne sulfur dioxide. Analysis of field-exposed badges stored for five days at room temperature showed no loss of absorbed SO2 when compared with badges analyzed immediately. Prior to field testing, badges and impingers were validated in the laboratory using certified gas cylinders containing SO2 in air over the anticipated exposure range. Both impinger methods, when validated in the laboratory, met NIOSH accuracy requirements for a sampling and analytical method.
本测试的目的是在钢厂高炉区域正常排渣作业期间，通过现场测试确定杜邦Pro-Tek C-20二氧化硫空气监测徽章与美国国家职业安全与健康研究所（NIOSH）物理和化学分析方法（P&CAM S308和160）的相对响应情况。在95%置信水平下，徽章与P&CAM S308之间未发现显著差异。徽章与P&CAM S308之间的相关系数为0.996。NIOSH P&CAM 160在现场给出的结果要低得多。空气中二氧化硫暴露浓度范围为6.3至35.4 ppm。对在室温下储存五天的现场暴露徽章进行分析，结果表明，与立即分析的徽章相比，吸收的二氧化硫没有损失。在进行现场测试之前，徽章和冲击式吸收管在实验室中使用含有预期暴露范围内空气中二氧化硫的标准气瓶进行了验证。两种冲击式吸收管方法在实验室验证时均符合NIOSH对采样和分析方法的准确度要求。
