Laboratory and hospital evaluation of four personal monitoring methods for glutaraldehyde in ambient air.
Laboratory and hospital evaluation of four personal monitoring methods for glutaraldehyde in ambient air.
复制标题
实验室和医院对环境空气中戊二醛的四种个人监测方法的评估。
DOI：
10.1080/15428119891010352
复制
发表时间：
1998
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Terry L. Wass
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
S. L. Wellons;Earl G. Trawick;Mario F. Stowers;Susan L. Jordan;Terry L. Wass
在实验室和医院研究了四种工业卫生监测方法，以评价其测量环境空气中戊二醛浓度的有效性。评价的采样装置包括硅胶管、直接阅读手持式戊二醛测定仪、DNPH-（2，4-二硝基苯肼）浸渍被动扩散标记和DNPH浸渍过滤盒。在实验室测定了不同方法的准确度和精密度。使用动态生成的戊二醛空气浓度（范围为0.05-0.4 ppm）对方法进行评价。在受控的实验室条件下，发现徽章、硅胶管和盒式过滤器方法是准确的。手持式血糖仪对戊二醛测试环境无响应。这些方法在医院环境中进行了比较。在医院研究期间，无法证明手持式血糖仪的性能，因为戊二醛浓度低于或仅略高于制造商规定的0.03 ppm检测限。统计学显着差异之间的徽章，硅胶管，和过滤盒的方法，但差异足够小，可以接受的工业卫生监测。
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.