Field comparison of air sampling methods for monomeric and polymeric 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate.
Field comparison of air sampling methods for monomeric and polymeric 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate.
复制标题
单体和聚合 1,6-六亚甲基二异氰酸酯空气采样方法的现场比较。
DOI：
10.1080/15459624.2011.555711
复制
发表时间：
2011
影响因子：
2
通讯作者：
Nylander-French,LeenaA
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Thomasen,JenniferM;Fent,KennethW;Reeb-Whitaker,Carolyn;Whittaker,StephenG;Nylander-French,LeenaA
本研究对13种不同的空气采样器在汽车修补行业中监测单体和聚合物1，6-二异氰酸酯（HDI）空气暴露的能力进行了严格比较。使用快速和缓慢干燥的透明涂层，我们测试了以下类型的采样器：单级和双级37 mm聚丙烯（PP）和聚苯乙烯（PS）采样器（开放式和封闭式），IOM（带有塑料和不锈钢插件），OSHA 42，IsoChek和WA-DOSH采样器。使用带有玻璃料的微型撞击取样器作为参考取样器。我们观察到，与慢干清漆相比，当应用快干清漆时，PP、PS和IOM取样器测量更高水平的HDI单体和缩二脲。当施加缓慢干燥的透明涂层时，开放面PP和PS采样器测量的单体和聚合物HDI（2倍; p < 0.003）显著高于封闭面PP和PS采样器。我们确定，与单级PP/PS（N = 59）、双级PP/PS（N = 59）或IOM（N = 24）采样器相比，撞击器（1.3-1.9倍）测量的单体和聚合物HDI显著更多。然而，当按试剂卡特征分层时，当应用快干透明涂层时，开放式单级PP和PS采样器与撞击器对HDI单体的性能相同，当应用慢干透明涂层时，对所有分析物的性能相同。与撞击采样器相比，OSHA 42测得的HDI单体浓度显著更高（1.2-3.1倍; p = 0.001）。IsoChek没有检测到HDI单体，并且在由实验室以外的实验室分析的三个样品中（即，OSHA 42、IsoChek和WA-DOSH），WA-DOSH与撞击器的一致性最好。透明涂层干燥时间对采样器测量单体和聚合物HDI能力的影响强调了化学分析中二异氰酸酯形态的重要性，以及在汽车喷漆期间测量暴露时仔细考虑选择空气采样器的重要性。
This study was to critically compared 13 different air samplers for their ability to monitor air exposures to monomeric and polymeric 1,6-hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) in the automotive refinishing industry. Using both fast- and slow-drying clearcoat, we tested the following types of samplers: single- and dual-stage 37-mm polypropylene (PP) and polystyrene (PS) samplers (open- and closed-face), IOM (with plastic and stainless steel inserts), OSHA42, IsoChek, and WA-DOSH samplers. Midget impingers with frit were used as reference samplers. We observed the PP, PS, and IOM samplers to measure greater levels of HDI monomer and biuret when a fast-drying clearcoat was applied compared with a slow-drying clearcoat. When a slow-drying clearcoat was applied, the open-face PP and PS samplers measured significantly more monomeric and polymeric HDI (2-fold; p < 0.003) than the closed-face PP and PS samplers. We determined that significantly more monomeric and polymeric HDI were measured by impingers (1.3–1.9-fold) compared with single-stage PP/PS (N = 59), dual-stage PP/PS (N = 59), or IOM (N = 24) samplers. However, when stratified by cassette characteristics, the open-face single-stage PP and PS samplers performed equally to the impingers for HDI monomer when a fast-drying clearcoat was applied, and for all analytes when a slow-drying clearcoat was applied. Significantly higher HDI monomer concentrations (1.2–3.1-fold; p = 0.001) were measured with OSHA42 compared with the impinger. The IsoChek did not detect HDI monomer, and of the three samplers analyzed by laboratories other than UNC (i.e., OSHA42, IsoChek, and WA-DOSH), the WA-DOSH was in the best agreement with the impingers. The influence of clearcoat drying time on the sampler's ability to measure monomeric and polymeric HDI emphasizes the importance of the speciation of diisocyanates in chemical analysis and the careful consideration for the selection of the air sampler to be used when measuring exposures during automotive spray painting.