Field Evaluation of PM10 Detectors in a Auarry Environment

Field Evaluation of PM10 Detectors in a Auarry Environment

G. Alfaro Degan D. Lippiello  M. Pinzari 

Department of Mechanical and Industrial Engineering, Roma 3 University, Rome, Italy

Page: 
361-372
|
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.2495/SDP-V10-N3-361-372
Received: 
N/A
|
Accepted: 
N/A
|
Published: 
30 June 2015
| Citation

OPEN ACCESS

Abstract: 

This study is aimed to test and compare two different devices and methods to assess PM10  concentration at workplace. An analysis of data collected by Public Administration database on the main nuisance factors at workplaces revealed that in quarrying activities, PM10  concentration and airborne dust, in general, represent one of the most relevant hazards. Therefore, to provide a useful stress test for sampling devices, the location selected was a basalt quarry near Rome. Airborne dust tends to be unavoidable in quarries, as this industry necessarily causes ground disturbance. Drilling, blasting, loading, hauling, moving, crushing and screening rocks, as well as transporting the final product away from the quarry, are all dusty activities.

To investigate this phenomenon, we carried out many outdoor sampling campaigns under various meteorological conditions during the period of 2012–2013. In each of them, two simultaneous samples were taken to assess PM10  airborne concentration: from one hand, a traditional device for long-term sampling (gravimetric analysis) was employed, while on the other one, a photometric aerosol detection technology developed with a real-time dust monitor was tested. The comparison of collected data revealed that optical readings, if not supported with a specific calibration against physical properties of the dust being measured, may overestimate PM10  concentration. In the second period of sampling campaign (2013), the calibration was realized taking into account particle size distribution and density and the samples were collected again. The following analysis showed an improvement in the correlation factor R2 by more than 20%. This result demonstrates that photo-metric aerosol detection technology using a nephelometer should be considered suitable for monitoring PM10 in dusty workplaces such as quarries or mines, especially when supported by a gravimetric sample to calibrate the optical device itself. This integrated approach seems to be the best option to reduce sampling time without reducing accuracy responses.

Keywords: 

airborne dust assessment, gravimetric sampler, occupational health and safety, PM10 detectors, quarries and mining activities, real-time dust monitor

  References

[1] Jones, T., Blackmore, P. & Leach, M., Characterisation of airborne particles collected within and proximal to an opencast coalmine: South Wales, UK. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 75, pp. 293–312, 2002. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1014808419171

[2] Jones, T., Morgan, A. & Richards, R., Primary blasting in a limestone quarry: physicochemical characterization of the dust clouds. Mineralogical Magazine, 67, pp. 153–162, 2003. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1180/0026461036720092

[3] Patrucco, M., Francese, S. & Scioldo, G., Workers exposure to airborne particulates in opencast and underground mining operations: a database approach for risk assessment and management. Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Data Mining, eds A. Zanasi, C.A. Brebbia, N.F.F. Ebecken, et al., Bologna, pp. 829–838, 2002. 

[4] Harrison, R.M., Jones, M. & Collins, G., Measurements of the physical properties of particles in urban atmosphere. Atmospheric Environment, 33, pp. 309–321, 1999. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(98)00164-2

[5] Goriou, F., Morin, J.P. & Weill, P., On road measurements of particle number concentrations and size distributions in urban and tunnel environments. Atmospheric Environment, 38, pp. 2831–2840, 2004. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.02.039

[6] Ukpebor, E.E., Ukpebor, J.E., Oviasogie, P.O., Odiase, J.I. &. Egbeme, M.A., Field comparison of two total suspended particulates (TSP) samplers to assess spatial variation. International Journal of Environmental Studies, 63(5), pp. 567–577, 2006. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00207230600963866

[7] Alfaro Degan, G., Lippiello, D. & Pinzari, M., Total suspended particulate from mobile sources in an Italian opencast quarry: a proposal to improve US EPA ISC3 model. Advances in Safety, Reliability and Risk Management – Proceedings of the European Safety and Reliability Conference, ESREL, pp. 2984–2990, 2011. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1201/b11433-423

[8] Alfaro Degan, G., Di Bona, G., Lippiello D. & Pinzari M., PM10 dispersion model in quarrying activities, a comparison of an ISC3 approach to a mono/multivariate geostatistical estimation. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 86, pp. 111–120, 2006, ISSN 1743-3541. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/air06012

[9] Gomiscek, B., Hauck, H., Stopper, S. & Preining, O., Spatial and temporal variation of PM1, PM2.5, PM10 and particle number concentration during the AUPHEP-project. Atmospheric Environment, 38, pp. 3917–3934, 2004. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2004.03.056

[10] Verma, D.K., Rajhans, G.S. & Malik, O.P., Respirable dust and respirable silica exposure in Ontario gold mines. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 11, pp. 111–116, 2014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2013.843784

[11] Toren, K. & Jarvholm, B., Effect of occupational exposure to vapors, gases, dusts, and fumes on COPD mortality risk among Swedish construction workers: a longitudinal cohort study. Chest, 145, pp. 992–997, 2014. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1378/chest.13-1429

[12] Chung K.Y.K. & Vaughan, N.P., Comparative laboratory trials of two portable direct reading dust monitors. Annals of Occupational Hygiene, 33, pp. 591–606, 1989. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/33.4.591

[13] Kuusisto, P., Evaluation of the direct reading instruments for the measurements of aerosols. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 57, pp. 1013–1018, 1983. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298668391405850

[14] Tsai, C.J., Shih, T.S. & Lin, J.D., Laboratory testing of three direct reading dust monitors. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 15, pp. 48–56, 2000.

[15] Vella, A.J. & Camilleri, R., Fine dust emission from softstone quarrying in Malta. Xjenza, 10, pp. 47–54, 2005.

[16] Mahmoud Abdu Alaban, et al. Road dust re suspension in the vicinity of limestone quarries in Jordan. Journal of the Air and Waste Management Association, 56, pp. 1440–1444, 2006. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10473289.2006.10464546

[17] Alfaro Degan, G., Lippiello, D. & Pinzari, M., Effectiveness of airborne dust control strategies in opencast quarrying activities: a case study near Rome. Geoingegneria Ambientale e Mineraria, 139(2), pp. 5–12, 2013, ISSN 1121-9041.

[18] Petavratzi, E., Kingman, S.W. & Lowndes, I.S., Assessment of the dustiness and the dust liberation mechanisms of limestone quarry operations. Chemical Engineering and Processing, 46, pp. 1412–1423, 2007. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cep.2006.11.005

[19] Yanosky, J.D., Williams, P.L. & MacIntosh, D.L., A comparison of two direct reading aerosol monitors with the federal reference method for PM2.5 in indoor air. Atmospheric Environment, 36, pp. 107–113, 2002. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(01)00422-8

[20] Tuch, T., Tamm, E., Heinrich, J., Heyder, J., Brand, P., Roth, C., Wichmann, H.E., Pekkanen, J. & Kreiling, W.G., Comparison of two particle size spectrometers from ambient aerosol measurements in environmental epidemiology. Atmospheric Environment, 34, pp. 139–149, 2000. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(99)00248-4

[21] Cheng, Y.H., Comparison of the TSI model 8520 and Grimm Series 1.108 portable aerosol instruments used to monitor particulate matter in an iron foundry. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 5(3), pp. 157–168, 2008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459620701860867

[22] Tasic, V., Jovasevic-Stojanovic, M. & Vardoulakis, S., Comparative assessment of a realtime particle monitor against the reference gravimetric method for PM10 and PM2.5 in indoor air. Atmospheric Environment, 54, pp. 358–364, 2012. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosenv.2012.02.030

[23] Alfaro Degan, G., Lippiello, D. & Pinzari, M., Monitoring airborne dust in a Italian basalt quarry: comparison between sampling methods. WIT Transactions on Ecology and the Environment, 174, pp. 75–84, 2013. ISSN 1743-3541. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2495/air130071

[24] Gero, A.J. & Tomb, T.F., Miniram calibration differences. Applied Industrial Hygiene, 3, pp. 110–114, 1988.

[25] Taylor, M.A., Quantitative measures for shape and size of particles. Powder Technology, 124, pp. 94–100, 2002. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0032-5910(01)00476-4

[26] Morawska, L., Johnson, G., Ristovski, Z.D. & Agranovski, V., Relation between particle mass and number for submicrometer airborne particles. Atmospheric Environment, 33, pp. 1983–1990, 1999. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s1352-2310(98)00433-6

[27] Lehocky, H. & Williams, P.L., Comparison of respirable samplers to direct reading real time aerosol monitors for measuring coal dust. American Industrial Hygiene Association Journal, 57, pp. 557–563, 1996. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15428119691014341

[28] Thorpe, A. & Walsh, P.T., Performance testing of three portable, direct-reading dust monitors. Annals of Occupational Hygiene Journal, 46, pp. 197–207, 2001. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mef035