Skip directly to search Skip directly to A to Z list Skip directly to page options Skip directly to site content

NIOSHTIC-2 Publications Search

Search Results

Size distributions of 0.5 to 20 mu m aerodynamic diameter lead-containing particles from aerosol sampler walls and filters.

Authors
Lee-T; Chisholm-WP; Slaven-JE; Harper-M
Source
Aerosol Sci Tech 2009 Oct; 43(10):1042-1050
NIOSHTIC No.
20035914
Abstract
The study presented here investigates the number weighted particle size distributions of aerosols generated in the laboratory from lead oxide and lead sulfide dusts and sampled by Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) and closed face cassette (CFC) samplers as determined by scanning electron microscopy (SEM). The wall deposits and filter deposits from each sampler were characterized separately. A Mann-Whitney statistical analysis revealed that differences in the number weighted distributions of particles captured by the filter and the wall were not significant over the size range ( up to 20 mu m aerodynamic equivalent diameter) present in these laboratory-generated aerosols. Furthermore, for these samples it was not possible to distinguish an absolute difference between the IOM and CFC filter catches. By comparing direct measurements of aerodynamic equivalent diameter (AED) made by an Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS) to AEDs calculated from SEM images, empirical shape factors for lead oxide and lead sulfide were determined. To validate this approach APS and SEM measurements of the AED of 2 mu m and 6 mu m physical diameter monodisperse glass and polystyrene microspheres were made. Using the shape factors of spheres and the known densities of these materials, it was found that the SEM determinations of AED agreed with the APS results. To demonstrate the reliability of the redeposition method of sample preparation, lead sulfide and lead oxide aerosols were briefly sampled by IOM samplers such that sufficient particles were collected for SEM examination directly on the filter but not so many that particles were likely to touch or overlap. Half of each filter was analyzed in the SEM directly; the other half was ultrasonically.
Keywords
Aerosol-particles; Aerosol-sampling; Air-flow; Air-monitoring; Air-sampling; Air-sampling-equipment; Air-sampling-techniques; Filters; Filtration; Laboratory-techniques; Microscopic-analysis; Microscopy; Particle-aerodynamics; Particle-counters; Particulates; Particulate-sampling-methods; Statistical-analysis; Ultrasonic-testing; Ultrasound
Contact
William P. Chisholm, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Health Effects Laboratory Division, Exposure Assessment Branch,1095 Willowdale Rd, M-S 3030, Morgantown, WV 26505
CODEN
ASTYDQ
CAS No.
1317-36-8
Publication Date
20091001
Document Type
Journal Article
Email Address
wchisholm@cdc.gov
Fiscal Year
2010
NTIS Accession No.
NTIS Price
Issue of Publication
10
ISSN
0278-6826
NIOSH Division
HELD
Priority Area
Manufacturing
Source Name
Aerosol Science and Technology
State
WV
TOP