University of Florence PAA Study

85 views
0 Likes
0 0
In order to assess short-term exposure to peracetic acid (PAA) in disinfection processes, the Authors compared four industrial hygiene monitoring methods to evaluate their proficiency in measuring airborne PAA concentrations.

Share on Social Networks

Share Link

Use permanent link to share in social media

Share with a friend

Please login to send this document by email!

Embed in your website

Select page to start with

14. References 1. Transparency Market Research [Internet], Albany, US. Peracetic Acid Market for Food and Beverages, Pulp and Paper Bleaching, Water Treatment, Medical, Agriculture and Other End-users - Global Industry Analysis, Size, Share, Growth, Trends and Forecast 2014 – 2020; 2014 [cited on 2016 November 2]. Available from: http://www.transparencymarketresearch.com/peracetic-acid-market.html. 2. Markets And Markets [Internet], Magarpatta city, India. Peracetic Acid Market by Type (Disinfectant, Sanitizer, Sterilant, & Others), by Application (Food, Healthcare, Water Treatment, Pulp & Paper, & Others), by Region, (North America, Europe, Asia-Pacific, & RoW) - Global Forecast to 2020; 2015 [cited on 2016 November 2]. Available from: http://www.marketsandmarkets.com/PressReleases/peracetic-acid.asp. 3. Persistence Market Research [Internet], New York City, US. Peracetic Acid Market: Global Industry Analysis and Forecast to 2015 to 2021; 2016 [cited on 2016 November 2]. Available from: http://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/peracetic-acid-market.asp. 4. Fraser JAL, Thorbinson A. Fogging trials with Tenneco Organics Limited (30th June, 1986) at Collards Farm. Solvay Interox, Warrington, UK. 1986. 5. Effkemann S, Brødsgaard S, Mortensen P, Linde SA, Karst U. Spectrophotometric and direct-reading methods for the analysis of gas phase peroxyacetic acid. Fresenius J Anal Chem. 2000;366(4):361-4. 6. Hecht G, Héry M. Generation of controlled atmospheres for the determination of the irritant potency of peroxyacetic acid. Ann Occup Hyg. 2002;46(1):89-96. 7. Hecht G, Héry M, Hubert G, Subra I. Simultaneous sampling of peroxyacetic acid and hydrogen peroxide in workplace atmospheres. Ann Occup Hyg. 2004;48(8):715-21, https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/meh067. 8. Henneken H, Assink L, de Wit J, Vogel M, Karst U. Passive sampling of airborne peroxyacetic acid. Anal Chem. 2006;78(18):6547-55, https://dx.doi.org/10.1021/ac060668h. 9. Pacenti M, Dugheri S, Boccalon P, Arcangeli G, Dolara P, Cupelli V. Air monitoring and assessment of occupational exposure to peracetic acid in a hospital environment. Ind Health. 2010;48(2):217-21. 10. Effkemann S, Brødsgaard S, Mortensen P, Linde SA, Karst U. Determination of gas phase peroxyacetic acid using pre-column derivatization with organic sulfide reagents and liquid chromatography. J Chromatogr A. 1999;855(2):551-61. 11. Augusto F, Koziel J, Pawliszyn J. Design and Validation of Portable SPME Devices for Rapid Field Air Sampling and Diffusion-Based Calibration. Anal Chem 2001;73:481–86. 12. Toscano P, Gioli B, Dugheri S, Salvini A, Matese A, Bonacchi A, et al. Locating industrial VOC sources with aircraft observations. Environ Pollut. 2011;159(5):1174-82. https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.envpol.2011.02.013 13. Pinkernell U, Lüke HJ, Karst U. Selective Photometric Determination of Peroxycarboxylic Acids in the Presence of Hydrogen Peroxide. Analyst. 1997;122:567-71. 14. Wagner M, Brumelis D, Gehr R. Disinfection of wastewater by hydrogen peroxide or peracetic acid: development of procedures for measurement of residual disinfectant and application to a physicochemically treated municipal effluent. Water Environ Res. 2002;74(1):33-50, https://doi.org/10.2175/106143002X139730. 15. R Core Team (2016). R: A language and environment for statistica lcomputing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. 16. Wiley On Line Library [Internet]. The MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety; 2014 [cited on 2016 November 2]. DOI: 10.1002/3527600418. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/3527600418.am7291e1713/pdf. 17. European Chemicals Agency [Internet]. Regulation (EU) No 528/2012 concerning the making available on the market and use of biocidal products; 2015 [cited on 2016 November 2]. Available from: http://dissemination.echa.europa.eu/Biocides/ActiveSubstances/1340-02/1340-02_Assessment_Report.pdf. 18. SKC Inc. [Internet]. Eighty Four, PA, US. Non agency Method 57; 2014 [cited on 2016 November 2]. Available from: https://www.skcinc.com/catalog/pdf/instructions/40145.pdf. 19. Pechacek N, Osorio M, Caudill J, Peterson B. Evaluation of the toxicity data for peracetic acid in deriving occupational exposure limits: a minireview. Toxicol Lett. 2015;233(1):45-57, https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.toxlet.2014.12.014. 20. Borak J, Brosseau LM. The past and future of occupational exposure limits. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2015;12 (Suppl 1):S1-3, https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2015.1091263 Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

1. ASSESSMENT OF OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE TO GASEOUS PERACETIC ACID Type: Short communication Abstract: Objectives In order to assess short-term exposure to peracetic acid (PAA) in disinfection processes, the Authors compared four industrial hygiene monitoring methods to evaluate their proficiency in measuring airborne PAA concentrations. Material and methods An active sampling by basic silica gel impregnated with methyl p-tolylsulfoxide, a passive solid phase micro- extraction technique using methyl-p-tolyl-sulfide as on-fiber derivatization reagent, an electrochemical direct- reading PAA monitor, and a novel strip doped with 2,2’-azino-bis(3-ethylbenzothiazoline)-6-sulfonate were evaluated and tested over the range of 0.06-16.00 mg/m3, using dynamically generated PAA air concentrations. Results Linearity and accuracy by a linear regression analysis showed the four methods were suitable for PAA monitoring. PAA monitoring in several use applications showed that the PAA Immediately Dangerous to Life or Health concentration (1.8 mg/m3) proposed by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health was frequently exceeded in wastewater treatment (up to 7.33 mg/m3), and sometimes during food and beverage processes and hospital high-level disinfection operations (up to 6.80 mg/m3). Conclusions The methods were suitable for the quick assessment of acute exposure in environmental monitoring of PAA and can assist in improving safety and air quality in the workplace where this disinfectant is used. These monitoring methods allowed the evaluation of changes to work practices to reduce PAA vapor concentrations during the operations when workers are potentially overexposed to PAA. Keywords: Peracetic acid, air monitoring, short-term exposure, colorimetric strip test, chromatography, Electrochemical Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

13. Figure Download source file (6.71 MB) Fig. 2. Cohen’s k appa (vertical axis) Vs PAA concentration s ( horizontal axis) scatterplot of PAA detector strips visual evaluation testing . Lowest, highest and mean results of judges from eleven selected subjects are shown vertically on the graph. Kappa = 0 is approximately equivalent to an accuracy=0.5

15. Index Manuscript body Manuscript body 1 - Download source file (131.5 kB) Tables Table 1 - Download source file (107.5 kB) Figures Figure 1 - Download source file (6.71 MB) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)

9. Manuscript body Download source file (131.5 kB) needed . Monitoring PAA vapor is especially important because of PAA’s lack of biological monitoring and the similarity of the odour is mixed with acetic acid . ACKNOWLEDGMENTS We t hank Fabrizio Niccolini of Aziend a Ospedaliero - Universitaria Careggi sanitar y director ’s staff , Gianluca Verdolini of A zienda USL T oscana Centro HSE Office and Marco Cacioli of A zienda USL T oscana Sud Est HSE Office who greatly assisted and supported this research. Many tha nks also to Massimiliano Monti of the Clinical Engineering Service of the Hospital for the support on sterilizers market survey. We are a lso immensely grateful to Tetra L aval Inc. in particular Alessandro Bonati, Barbara Botti, Roberto Ramazzini from Sidel Spa for sharing insights and experiences during on field tests that improved deeply data for this manuscript. We would als o like to show our gratitude to Simone Lippi , Fabrizio Mancuso from I ngegnerie T oscane Srl offering their valuable contributions in t he implementation of the research in outdoor wastewater plants e valuation. We also thank Barbara Bocking for the English review of this manuscript. 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190

8. Manuscript body Download source file (131.5 kB) The SPME passive sampler allowed the automation of the sampling procedure. T hanks to structurally informative MS fragmentation pattern s , t he analysis by GC/MS is characterized by a hi gher sensitivity and better discrimination than other routine techniques employed in industrial hygiene laboratories . In addition, portable SPME - GC/MS instruments are now commercially available. The electrochemical direct - reading instrument and the strip doped with ABTS were chosen due to their eas e of use and immediate analytical results. The first portable sampler with the electrochemical sensor for PAA vapor is available with a bluetoo th sensor communication, a Windo ws based interface for downloading file data, contin uous comm unication with monitor displays , and connection to management platform s to generate reports and analyze historical data. The miniaturized structure of the strip allowed real - time measure also as leak detec tor, inspections, and to verify any breakthrough of charcoal - impregnated face mask s . Furthermore, the four samplers used in this study ha ve been simple to set up and integrate all sampling , analysis management and software implementation into the Laboratory Infor mation Management System s ( Bika Lab System). Due to many limitations of the PAA toxicity database, there is still insufficient information to ascertain if a STEL alone provide s adequate occupational protection. Pechacek et al [1 9 ] suggested a TLV - TWA and STEL approach as a more appropriate one considering the potent irritation potential of PAA . I n agreement with Borak et al [ 20 ] the present paper is support s developing PAA Occupational Exposure Limits by the evaluation of human exposure in several key occupational settings. CONCLUSIONS In con clusion, the experimental a nd field comparison s showed that the aforementioned PAA vapor measuring methods agree, and are easily integrated in an industrial hygiene plan to prevent significant acute toxicity to PAA vapor . Due the frequent occurrence in which the TLV - STEL and IDLH values were exceeded in normal use, a method to evaluate total PAA vapor exposure is 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175

7. Manuscript body Download source file (131.5 kB) growing interest in this field and the increasing use of PAA i n many application s , validated methods are urgently required for both expert and non - expert users . The high number of analyses necessary for the evaluation with TLV - STEL requires the use of economical and simple to use sampler s whose use should be as far as possible automat ed to avoid errors . A disa d vantage of the samplers proposed by Henneken et al [8] and Effkermann [10] is poor storage stability , sampling p eriods greater th an 15 - min, and furthermore they are not presently commercially available. Specifically, t he first is based on the oxidation of ADS into the 2 - ([3 - {2 - [4 - Amino - 2 - (methylsulfoxy)phenyl] - 1 - diazenyl}phenyl]sulfonyl) - 1 - ethanol , and it was developed with a n uptak e rate for PAA of 15.7 ml/min  9.2% . S ince the PAA is produced from the acid - catalyzed reaction between acetic acid and HP as well as the commercial PAA formulas which are a mixture of the three compounds , t he cross reac t ivity toward HP was found to be 2.45 ml/min , therefore the lower flow limits the applicability of the sampl ers evaluated by Henneken et al [8] . However, i t was found that for the blank system, a rapid transformation into the corresponding su lfoxide occurred within a few days , when the reverse phase LC columns were impregnated with the ADS . In the second sampler, using an impinger for bubbling, the oxidation of MTS was measured by liquid chromatograp hy with detection at 224 nm [10]. Although proposed in 2014 by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft [1 6 ], t his method is not particularly suited to personal sampling, and furthermore, immediately after sampling, MTS and triphenylphosphine must be added in t he absorption solution. R ecently, a report [1 7 ] was published reviewing the market and use of biocidal pr oducts ( EU Regulation 528/2012 ) ; and in this report, a PAA active sampling method using basic silica gel impregnated with sulfoxide was proposed [7] . In 2014, another chem ical company began marketing MTSO tubes for PAA air monitoring [1 8 ]. T he Authors evaluated alternative procedures that permit the instantaneous or 15 - min time weighted average sampling. Overall, these methods provide an effective assessment of occupational exposure to gaseous PAA, that can be used to assist in improving safety and air quality in the workplace where this disinfectant is used. 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150

12. Figure Download source file (6.71 MB) Fig. 1. Dynamic calibration system. 1. Thermostatic Block with Inj ector Port ATIS Injector System. 2. Manometer for auxiliary gas ( medical air, 1.0 - 5.0 l/min) . 3. Manometer for inlet gas (medical air, 0.1 l/min). 4. Mixing chamber. 5. C hamb er (1386 ml volume) for measurement devices: a. SPME fiber, b. Visual test strip PAA detector, c. MTSO basic silica gel cartridge connected to 37mm quarz fiber cassette, d. ChemDAQ electrochemical sensor , 6. Calibrated Rotameter. 7. Syringe - Pump. 8. E xtrac tor hood . a b c d 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

5. Manuscript body Download source file (131.5 kB) Injector System ( Supelco, Bellefonte, USA) . The sampling methods were evaluated using PAA atmospheres over the range of 0.06 - 16.00 mg/m 3 (Figure 1). The four samplers were exposed at the same time for each PAA air c oncentration. The PAA vapour flow was blended with a dry air flow (1.0 - 5.0 l /min), and measured by a calibrate d rotameter UG2.5 (Metrix Italia, Candiana Padova , Italy) . Th e concentration of water vapour produced by the impinger , was determined by mea suring the dew point temperature with a photoacoustic Multigas Monitor mod. 1312 (INNOVA, Ballerup, Denmark). Relative humidity was obtained from the dew p oints using the Mer c k Index table and the air temperature. The atmospheric pressure was determin e d by a digital pressure indicator Druck DPI 705 (GE Oil and Gas, Italy) . S tatistical analysis of method evaluation Robust l inear regression of e ach method was verified in terms of linearity and accuracy by standard error evaluation and an independent t test on the slope coefficient was performed . The c ritic al t value for a two - tailed test with the alpha level adopted (0.05) , and the degrees of freedom for each method is present in Table 1 . Statistical analysis was performed with Stata software ver. 11.2 (Stata Corp LP. Lakeway Drive College Station, Texas, U S) and R software environment for statistical computing provided with "sandwich","lmtest" packages [15 ] . Otherwise, PAA detector strips were tested with a concordance correlation analysis (Cohen’s kappa) t h rough visual evaluation from selected subje c ts . Th e i ns trume ntal limit of quantification (LLOQ) of the electrochemical sensor was provided by the manufacturer. For the chromatographic techniques , a signal - to - noise ratio of 3:1 and 10:1 was used to estimat e the limit of de tection ( LOD ) and LLOQ , respectively . The d etection limit as mass/air sample volume, depends on the total air volume sampled. Sampling sites A survey carried out in a food and beverage processing, wastewater treatment, and hospital high - level disinf ection department was performed during routine operations to access the risk s of PAA 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

3. Manuscript body Download source file (131.5 kB) (methylsulfanyl)phenyl] - 1 - diazenyl}phenyl]sulfonyl) - 1 - ethanol (ADS) as reagents whether on tubes, impinger, glass fiber filters or solid phase microextraction (SPME) and later analyzed by colorimetry, liquid chromatography (LC) or gas chromatography (GC). Electrochemical sensors for PAA vapor detection are small and convenient real - time portable instruments ; but experimental and field reports between direct - reading and laboratory analytical method s on reliability and accuracy are often limited. The aim of this work was to assess short - term exposure to airborne PA A in disinfection process es by comparing the four analytical methods. In addition to laboratory testing, this paper also describes the evaluation and validation protocol used to assess PAA monitoring in food and beverage processing, wastewater treatment, and hospital high - disinfection. MATERIAL AND METHODS Measurement devices Active sampling with an ai r flow of 1 .0 l/min for 15 minutes was performed by MTSO basic silica gel cartridge (Giotto Biotech, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy) connect ed to GilAir Plus pumps (Sensydine, St. Petersburg, USA) for personal sampling, and to a 16 - position automatic collector b o x /Bravo M Plus pump (TCR Tecora, Milano, Italy) for area sampling [7]. The cross sensitivity to hydrogen peroxide (HP) was avoided through a 37 - mm cassette with quartz filter coated with titanium oxysulfate hydrate and connected to the cartridge . The cartridge was desorbed with 5 ml of acetonitrile and the resulting solution was then made up to 10 ml with water. The LC/ultraviolet (UV, wavelength 224 nm) analysis of the methyl - p - tolylsulfone using a reversed phase Alltima C18 5 μm column (250 mm length, 3.0 mm internal diameter , Grace Davison Discovery Science, Deer field, USA ) in isocratic mode (57/43 acetonitrile/water, 1 ml/min) was controlled with a Waters Alliance e2695. For SPME passive sampling, the method by Pacenti et al [9 ] was used with modifications. A Fast Fit Assemblies 85 μm carboxen/ polydimethylsiloxane (CARB/PDMS) fiber (Supelco, Bellefonte, USA) was doped for 20 s in the headspace of a 10 ml vial previous equilibrated for 20 min at 25 °C and 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51

2. Manuscript body Download source file (131.5 kB) INTRODUCTION The global peracetic acid (PAA, CAS No. 79 - 21 - 0 ) market is estimated to grow between 2014 and 2020 at a compound annual growth rate of 7.3% , to reach a n economic valuation of US$ 652.9 million by 2020 [1]. Europe is the largest market of PAA followed by North America, and Pacific Asia. T he different application s of the PAA can be seg mented as disinfectants, sterilant, sanitizer and others. The d isinfectant segment i s the largest market segment worldwide; and within this segment food and beverage industry is the fastest growing PAA sector , account ing for over 25% of the global market , followed by healthcare, and water treatment [2]. In the pulp and paper industry , PAA has been found to be an excellent alternative for delignification and bleaching [3] , though this market i s still small . Advances in manufacturing technology, the growing popularity of bio - based chemicals and innovative techniques developed for the use of PAA in many new applications have resulted in an array of product s which are expected to present new opportunities for the PAA market in upcoming years. Direct exposure to PAA can cause severe burns, allergy, and other hazardous health effects to the eyes, skin, and respiratory organs. A human study [4] reported that exposure to 4.67 mg/m 3 (1 .55 ppm) for 12 minutes caused slight to mild irritation, and exposure to 6.23 mg/m 3 for 60 minutes caused extreme discomfort and serious escape - impairing effects. The National Institute of Occu pational Safety and Health (NIOSH) proposed the Immediately Dangerous to Life and Health (IDLH) limit of 1.8 mg/m 3 . The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has established a Threshold Limit Value (TLV) of indicated as a Short - Term Exposure Limit (STEL) of 1.2 mg/m 3 , 15 - min time weighted average exposure that should not be exceeded at any time during a workday. Currently , there are a few analytical methods for PAA vapor . These include the active [5 - 7] or passive [8,9] sampling methods using 2,2' - azino - bis(3 - ethylbenzothiazoline) - 6 - sulfonate (ABTS ) , methyl - p - tolyl sulfide (MTS), methyl - p - tolylsulfoxide (MTSO) , and 2 - ([3 - {2 - [4 - Amino - 2 - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26

6. Manuscript body Download source file (131.5 kB) occupational exposure. The PAA vapor was measured for various operation s including i) the replacement of PAA solution into lavaendoscopes in thirty - two hospital clinical units, ii) filling PAA tanks for wastewater disinfection in six municipal plants , monitoring the truck driver whil e performing his routine daily duties, and iii) monitoring during the maintenance of high speed filling machines (18.000 bottles/hour) for soft drinks , which use a solution of 15% PAA nebulized at a maximum concentration of 2000 ppm . A multi - data logger Babuc/A (LSI Lastem, Milano, Italy) was employed t o measure temperature , relative humidity and air velocity during air sampling. RESULTS A comparison of the ChemDAQ e lectrochemical senso r , the MTSO basic silica gel cartridge and MTS CARB/PDMS SPME fiber methods is shown in Table 1 . I ndependent t test of the experimental data demonstrated that all the three methods compared are suitable for PAA vapour monitorin g . In particular , passive SPME technique showed the smallest variability (standard error of 0.0019 ) and the lowest LOD value (0.027 mg/m 3 ) . T he electrochemical direct - reading instrument was sensitive to the PAA vapor concentrati on one order of magnitude below the TLV - STEL value . Correlation analysis on visual test strip PAA detector strips showed a very good agreement level of concordance (0.8 - 1.00 Cohen’s Kappa) (Figure 2) . The monitoring studies showed that PAA ex posures higher than 15 - minute time weighted average occupational exposure limits (ACGIH 1.2 mg/m 3 ) were found in wastewater treatment ( up to 7.33 mg/m 3 ) , in f ood and beverage processing (up to 6.80 mg/m 3 ) and in hospital high - level disinfection ( up to 1 . 52 mg/m 3 ) . A detailed description of personal samplings is shown in Table 2. DISCUSSION For many years, the Institut National de Recherche et Sécurité recommended the determination of airborne P AA, with TLVs - Time Weighted Average (TWA) and - STEL of 0.62 and 1.56 mg/m 3 , respectively . In 2013 the ACGIH introduce d a TLV - STEL value of 1.2 mg/m 3 . Considering the 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124

4. Manuscript body Download source file (131.5 kB) con taining 5 μL of MTS. MTSO was obtained f rom the reaction betw een PAA and MTS [10] . Personal and area sampling for 15 minutes w as performed by “rapid - SPME” [11] using SPME Automatic Sampler [12] (Chromline, Prato, Italy) and a Diffusive Sampling Fiber Holde r (Supelco, Bellefonte, USA), respectively. The experimental average sampling rate was 7.78 ml/min. After sampling, PAA was analyzed with fast GC/mass spectrometry (MS) with a Shimadzu GC 2010/QP MS2010 series, using a narrow bore MEGA - 5 MS column (10 m x 0.10 mm x 0.1 μm film thickness). The target ion for MTSO was m/z 138. Full automation of the LC and GC procedures was achieved using a Flex autosampler (EST Analytical, Fairfield, USA) equipped with a 45 - position Multi Cartridge/Fiber Excha nge (Chromline, Prato, Italy). Air monitoring by a continuous, direct reading detector was evaluated using a PAA Envirocell Sensor Module (ChemDAQ, Pittsburgh, USA) . This monitor is a passive sampler (no pump) and the sensors are plug and play . The electrochemical sensor has a digital resolution of 0.01 ppm , minimum detection limit of 0.04 ppm (manufacturer ’s specification) and a mean response time of 20 s. Personal sampling was performed using a ChemDAQ SafeCide ™ Portable Monit oring configurated with tablet. The Steri - Trac ™ Area Monitor was connected f or area sampling to a management platform for data collection. The fourth method using novel a visual test strip PAA Detector (Giotto Biotech, Sesto Fiorentino, Italy) based on rea ction of ABTS to its radical cati on , for sampling time of 15 min and quantification by a colour scale to 0.4 ppm [5,13,14] . The iodide catalysed oxidation of the ABTS by PAA leads to the formation of a green product with four strong absorption maxima between 405 and 810 nm (highest absorbance was observed at 415 nm) . Dynamic calibration system The PAA vapour was generated by a syringe - pump Harvard Plus 11 (Harvard Apparatus, Holliston, USA), equipped with a 1 ml gas - tight syringe set to 2 μl /min connect ed to an ATIS Adsorbent Tube 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76

10. Table Download source file (107.5 kB) Calibration curve (mg/m 3 ) MTSO basic silica gel cartridge Mean (mg/m 3 ) MTS CARB/PDMS SPME fiber Mean (mg/m 3 ) ChemDAQ electrochemical sensor Mean (mg/m 3 ) 0.075 0 . 070 0.077 0.00 0.15 0.138 0.149 0.13 0.30 0.323 0.309 0.28 0.60 0.577 0.602 0.59 1.20 1.114 1.202 1.11 2.40 2.311 2.431 2.44 4.80 4.701 4.825 4.66 9.60 9.808 9.579 9.11 19.00 19.577 19.248 18.93 R - Squared 0.9992 0.9999 0.9962 Residual Standard Error 0.0098 0.0019 0.0184 Student t test (α=0.05%) Degrees of freedom= 45 Student t critical Value = ±2.01 t = - 2.26 Prob. ( T > t ) = 0.029 Degrees of freedom= 45 Student t critical Value = ±2.01 t = - 0.83 Prob. ( T > t ) = 0.411 Degrees of freedom= 45 Student t critical Value = ±2.01 t = 0. 81 Prob. ( T > t ) = 0.422 LOD 0.11 0.009 0.03 LLOQ 0.33 0.027 0.12 Table 1. Performance Comparison of MTSO basic silica gel cartridge . MTS CARB/PDMS SPME fiber methods and ChemDAQ electrochemical sensor (25 °C . 760 torr) .

11. Table Download source file (107.5 kB) Facilities Op erations T em perature Mean (°C) MT SO basic silica gel cart ridge (mg/m 3 ) MT S CARB/P DMS SP ME fiber (mg/m 3 ) ChemDAQ elect rochemical sensor (mg/m 3 ) V isual t est st rip P AA Det ect or (mg/m 3 ) 15 - min exposure mean (min - max) 30 - min exposure mean (min - max) 15 - min exposure me an (min - max) 30 - min exposure mean (min - max) 15 - min exposure mean (min - max) 30 - min exposure mean (min - max) 15 - min exposure mean (min - max) Relative Humidity . Mean (%) Food & Beverage Plant M aintenance works in filling bottle machine for soft drink s: Operator desk 2 0 0.34 (0.22 - 0.42) 0.18 (0.15 - 0 .23) 0.41 (0.27 - 0.46) 0.38 (0.25 - 0.45) 0.27 (0.24 - 0.33) 0.24 (0.23 - 0.29) <1.20 (<1.20 - <1.20) 62 P AA feeding tank area 19 1.05 (0.93 - 1.10) 1.02 (0.97 - 1.05) 1.19 (0.92 - 1.23) 1.09 (0.97 - 1.18) 0. 99 (0.84 - 1.08) 1.02 (0.86 - 1.08) 1.20 (<1.20 - 1.20) 63 Control panel u pstairs 20 0.52 (0.43 - 0.56) 0.49 (0.46 - 0.53) 0.78 (0.57 - 0.84) 0.75 (0.65 - .81) 0.63 (0.48 - 0.69) 0.65 (0.53 - 0.72) <1.20 (<1.20 - <1.20) 63 Bottles ou tfeed 20 0.94 (0.87 - 0.98) 0.97 (0.86 - .04) 0.98 (0.93 - 0 .06) 0.97 (0.43 - 0 .56) 1.05 (0.96 - 1.23) 0.88 (0.75 - 0.98) 1.20 (<1.20 - 1.20) 62 Opening b ottle sterilizer door 20 4.94 (4.01 - 6.01) - 4.55 (4.25 - 6.80) - 5.19 (4.23 - 4.88) - >1.20 (>1.20 - > 1.20) 62 Hospital high - level disinfection Replacement of exhausted P AA solution (sol.) in lavaendoscope: Johnson &Johnson, Adapta Scope (Wassenburg Med.), 5% P AA sol . 23 1.51 (0.36 - 1.73) 0.72 (0.21 - 1.11) 1.52 (0.30 - 1.67) 0.63 (0.19 - 0.92) 1.63 (0.34 - 2.01 ) 0.68 (0.29 - 1.91 ) 1.20 (<1.20 - 1.20) 65 Serie 3, Soluscope , 5% P AA sol. 22 0.62 (0.22 - 1.08) 0.31 (0.09 - 0.39) 0.55 (0.18 - 0.62) 0.37 (0.11 - 0.87) 0.52 (0.19 - 0.63) 0.35 (0.13 - 1.01) >1.20 (>1.20 - >1.20) 63 Steelco, Steel co EW 2/1 , 15 % P AA sol. 24 0.19 ( 0.12 - 0.33) 0.10 (0.06 - 0.19) 0.16 ( 0.11 - 0.34) 0.08 (0.05 - 0.18) 0.18 ( 0.14 - 0.37) 0.11 (0.08 - 0.21) <1.20 (<1.20 - <1.20) 62 Labcaire Systems Ltd , Autoscope F2 , 5% P AA sol. 21 0.12 (0.08 - 0.31) 0.07 (0.04 - 0.23) 0 .14 (0.11 - 0.38) 0.09 (0.07 - 0.29) 0.17 (0.19 - 0.42) 0.08 (0.05 - 0.28) <1.20 (<1.20 - <1.20) 63 Steris, Mentor , Reliance EP S P rocessing Syste m, 35% P AA sol. 22 0.21 (0.12 - 0.33) 0.13 (0.07 - 0.15) 0.24 (0.15 - 0.36) 0.15 (0.09 - 0.13) 0.27 (0.17 - 0.39) 0.1 7 (0.10 - 0.19) <1.20 (<1.20 - <1.20) 66 Cantel Med ., ISA System , 5% P AA sol. 21 1.01 (0.87 - 1.52) 0.66 (0.32 - 0.92) 0.89 (0.68 - 1.03) 0.41 (0.30 - 0.57) 0.85 (0.42 - 1.18) 0.39 (0.25 - 0.48) >1.20 (>1.20 - >1.20) 63 Medivators Inc. , Advantage P lus, 5% P AA sol. 23 0.09 (0.05 - 0.20) 0.04 (0.02 - 0.16) 0.11 (0.06 - 0.22) 0.06 (0.05 - 0.19) 0.08 (0.04 - 0.18) 0.05 (0.02 - 0.13) <1.20 (<1.20 - <1.20) 66 Medivators Inc., ISA, 5% P AA sol. 22 0.06 (0.05 - 0.12) 0.03 (0.02 - 0.09) 0.10 (0.05 - 0.11) 0.05 (0.02 - 0.09) 0.06 (0.03 - 0.09) 0.04 (0.02 - 0.09) <1.20 (<1.20 - <1.20) 64 Wastewater Treatment Plant Truck driver during filling operation of P AA tanks: Refill P AA tank from deliver 19 0.95 (0.84 - 1.18) - 0.99 (0.90 - 1.23) - 0.89 (0.39 - 1.12) - 1.20 (<1.20 - 1.20) 61 P AA refilling pipes removing 18 0.64 (0.54 - 0.75) - 0.72 (0.61 - 0.84) - 0.67 (0.45 - 0.94) - 1.20 (<1.20 - 1.20) 60 Washing refilling pipes. 19 2.92 (1.41 - 7.33) 1.31 (0.46 - 5.10) 2.85 (1.31 - 6.06) - 1.91 (0.76 - 6.35) - >1.20 (>1.20 - >1.20) 60 Table 2 . Summary of PAA personal sampling results determined by the four evaluated methods. Temperatures and Relative Humidity values are provided for mg/m 3 to ppm conversion.

Views

  • 85 Total Views
  • 58 Website Views
  • 27 Embedded Views

Actions

  • 0 Social Shares
  • 0 Likes
  • 0 Dislikes
  • 0 Comments

Share count

  • 0 Facebook
  • 0 Twitter
  • 0 LinkedIn
  • 0 Google+