Delphine Bard

Two approaches were used to evaluate the performance of the reticulated metal foams used to size select and collect dust generated in the dustiness rotating drum tester according to the EN 15051-2 standard “Workplace exposure—Measurement of the dustiness of bulk materials—Rotating drum test”. Firstly, the detailed performance of the metal foams was measured in a calm air chamber using a polydisperse aerosol of glass particles and assessed against the respirable conventions described in the EN 481 standard “Workplace atmospheres—Size fraction definitions for measurement of airborne particles”. Secondly, the performance of the EN 15051-2 metal foam size selection for the respirable fraction was compared using the rotating drum dustiness test, with that of a cyclone set-up, using 4 polydisperse glass powders of different size distribution and dustiness potential. The research discusses further improvements to the EN 15051-2 standard and an approach to more closely match the EN 481 convention. In general, for the respirable fraction, the tests in this study demonstrated a conservative oversampling by the current EN 15051-2 metal foam set-up in comparison with the EN 481 convention. Calculations and tests showed an improved fit was achieved by reducing the inner diameter of the flanges separating the metal foams and the filter. This study also showed the importance of sealing the circumference of the metal foams when testing highly dusty powders. A direct comparison of the respirable dustiness fraction, measured by the current EN 15051-2 metal foams set-up and by a cyclone set-up, showed broad agreement. However, for extremely dusty powders, the metal foams can clog, and dust can accumulate between the 20 and 80 pores per inch foams.

(1) Background: Small, lightweight, low-cost optical particulate matter (PM) monitors are becoming popular in the field of occupational exposure monitoring, because these devices allow for real-time static measurements to be collected at multiple locations throughout a work site as well as being used as wearables providing personal exposure estimates. Prior to deployment, devices should be evaluated to optimize and quantify measurement accuracy. However, this can turn out to be difficult, as no standardized methods are yet available and different deployments may require different evaluation procedures. To gain insight in the relevance of different variables that may affect the monitor readings, six PM monitors were selected based on current availability and evaluated in the laboratory; (2) Methods: Existing strategies that were judged appropriate for the evaluation of PM monitors were reviewed and seven evaluation variables were selected, namely the type of dust, within- and between-device variations, nature of the power supply, temperature, relative humidity, and exposure pattern (peak and constant). Each variable was tested and analyzed individually and, if found to affect the readings significantly, included in a final correction model specific to each monitor. Finally, the accuracy for each monitor after correction was calculated; (3) Results: The reference materials and exposure patterns were found to be main factors needing correction for most monitors. One PM monitor was found to be sufficiently accurate at concentrations up to 2000 µg/m³ PM_2.5, with other monitors appropriate at lower concentrations. The average accuracy increased by up to three-fold compared to when the correction model did not include evaluation variables; (4) Conclusions: Laboratory evaluation and readings correction can greatly increase the accuracy of PM monitors and set boundaries for appropriate use. However, this requires identifying the relevant evaluation variables, which are heavily reliant on how the monitors are used in the workplace. This, together with the lack of current consensus on standardized procedures, shows the need for harmonized PM monitor evaluation methods for occupational exposure monitoring.