An intercomparison of three methods for measurement of personal exposure to airborne water-mix metalworking fluids.
Howe-A; Bradley-S; Glaser-R
American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition, May 10-15, 2003, Dallas, Texas. Fairfax, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2003 May; :4-5
Water-mix metalworking fluids (MWFs) are applied to the work piece in processes such as grinding, drilling, and cutting to provide lubrication and cooling. They contain mineral oils, emulsifiers, corrosion inhibitors, biocides, etc. Metalworking processes result in the generation of aerosols, inhalation of which causes irritation of the eyes and respiratory tract. An elemental marker method was therefore developed and validated by the Health and Safety Laboratory (HSL) to measure personal exposure to airborne water-mix MWFs. Details of this method were presented at AIHce 2001. Two other methods for water-mix MWFs have also been developed in recent years. The Berufsgenossenschaftliches lnstitut fur Arbeitssicherheit (BIA) have published an FTIR method for samples collected on a filter and back-up XAD-2 cartridge; and the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) has described a gravimetric method for samples collected on a filter, either by direct weight gain or by difference after extraction using a ternary solvent mixture of dichloromethane, methanol, and toluene (1:1:1). This paper describes an exercise carried out to compare the performance of the methods. Three types of MWFs were tested at three sample loadings. MWF aerosols were generated from 5% (m/v) working strength solutions and six replicate samples were collected for each test using a multiport sampling device. Results showed good agreement between all methods at high sample loadings "10% RSD), although the BIA method could not be used at this or any other loading for the 'synthetic' fluids. At medium to low sample loadings, HSL and BIA results were again in good agreement for 'conventional' and 'semisynthetic' fluids "10% RSD). However, results obtained with the ASTM method were lower, probably due to losses in transport, prolonged storage, and an additional dessication step, and could not be reported for low level 'semi-synthetic' and 'synthetic' fluids because of high laboratory media blanks.
Occupational-exposure; Airborne-particles; Metalworking-fluids; Water-sampling; Mineral-oils; Emulsifiers; Corrosion-inhibitors; Biocides; Metalworking; Aerosols; Eye-irritants; Respiratory-irritants
75-09-2; 67-56-1; 108-88-3
Research Tools and Approaches: Exposure Assessment Methods
American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition, May 10-15, 2003, Dallas, Texas