Wellons S L, Trawick E G, Stowers M F, Jordan S L, Wass T L
Union Carbide Corp., South Charleston, WV 25303, USA.
Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1998 Feb;59(2):96-103. doi: 10.1080/15428119891010352.
Four industrial hygiene monitoring methods were studied in the laboratory and in a hospital to evaluate their effectiveness in measuring glutaraldehyde concentrations in ambient air. The sampling devices evaluated included a silica gel tube, a direct reading handheld glutaraldehyde meter, a DNPH- (2,4-dinitrophenylhydrazine) impregnated passive diffusion badge, and a DNPH-impregnated filter cassette. The accuracy and precision of the different methods were determined in the laboratory. The methods were evaluated using dynamically generated glutaraldehyde air concentrations over the range of 0.05-0.4 ppm. The badge, silica gel tube, and filter cassette methods were found to be accurate under controlled laboratory conditions. The handheld meter did not respond to the glutaraldehyde test atmospheres. The methods were compared in a hospital environment. During the hospital study the performance of the handheld meter could not be demonstrated because the concentrations of glutaraldehyde were below or only slightly above the manufacturer's stated 0.03 ppm limit of detection. Statistically significant differences were found between the badge, silica gel tube, and filter cassette methods, but the differences were small enough to be acceptable for industrial hygiene monitoring.
在实验室和医院中研究了四种工业卫生监测方法,以评估它们在测量环境空气中戊二醛浓度方面的有效性。所评估的采样设备包括硅胶管、直读式手持式戊二醛检测仪、DNPH(2,4-二硝基苯肼)浸渍的被动扩散式徽章以及DNPH浸渍的滤盒。在实验室中确定了不同方法的准确性和精密度。使用动态生成的0.05 - 0.4 ppm范围内的戊二醛空气浓度对这些方法进行评估。发现在受控的实验室条件下,徽章法、硅胶管法和滤盒法是准确的。手持式检测仪对戊二醛测试环境没有反应。在医院环境中对这些方法进行了比较。在医院研究期间,由于戊二醛浓度低于或仅略高于制造商规定的0.03 ppm检测限,手持式检测仪的性能无法得到证明。在徽章法、硅胶管法和滤盒法之间发现了具有统计学意义的差异,但这些差异小到足以在工业卫生监测中被接受。