Page:Current Strategies for Engineering Controls in Nanomaterial Production and Downstream Handling Processes.pdf/72



4.2.1 Direct-reading Monitoring

Currently, it is unclear which metrics associated with exposures to engineered nanomaterials are most important from a health and safety perspective. The mass-based metric is traditionally used to characterize toxicological effects of exposure to air contaminants. Animal in vivo exposure studies and cell-culture-based in vitro experiments show that size and shape are the two major factors influencing toxicological effects of engineered nanomaterials. Some of the instruments developed to characterize nanoparticles are capable of real-time measurement [Brouwer et al. 2004; Pui 1996; Ramachandran 2005]. Real-time measurement of aerosolized particles, including primary nanoparticles and agglomerates, play an important role in identifying nanomaterial emissions and evaluating control systems during field surveys. The measuring devices used to evaluate controls in the workplace should be portable and robust. Information about readily available instruments and techniques for nanoparticle monitoring (Table 3) has been summarized and discussed in technical reports [BSI 2007a; EU-OSHA 2009; HSE 2004; ISO 2007, 2008; Mark 2007; Park et al. 2010a, b, 2011].

It is noted that some of the instruments on the list in Table 3 are not suited for monitoring nanomaterial emissions in the workplace. For instance, the tapered element oscillating microbalance (TEOM) is used by the Environmental Protection Agency as a standard reference equivalent method to monitor environmental air quality, but the cut-off particle sizes of 10, 2.5, or 1 µm and dimensions of this instrument limit its use for workplace sampling. Another example is the scanning monitoring particle sizer (SMPS), which uses a radioactive source to bring the sampling aerosol to charge equilibrium. This can make shipping difficult. Sometimes it can be difficult to obtain quantifiable mass concentrations of nanomaterials in the workplace using impactor sampling. Newly developed devices, such as photometers, can detect nanoparticles as small as 50−100 nm with resolution around 1 µg/m$3$. These instruments can provide continuous monitoring for real-time mass concentrations.

Data from direct-reading instruments only provide a semiquantitative indication of potential nanoparticle emissions. Fluctuating background concentrations may make determination of control efficiency difficult; changes in background concentration may lead the evaluator to think that the controls are performing either better or worse than they are actually performing. In addition, direct-reading instruments cannot distinguish particle source and composition; these can only be determined through off-line microscopic and chemical analysis.

Sampling quality is always an issue for field evaluation. High-quality sampling results can be obtained by following certain steps. The sampling data can only be trusted by using instruments that have been calibrated for nanoparticle sampling before use. Factory calibration for particle counters and sizers typically uses reference materials having a range of particle sizes. If possible, the instruments should be calibrated with the target nanomaterials in the laboratory before using them for field study. The comparison calibration should also be done on identical instruments if they will be used in a field survey. To maintain consistent sampling performance, a zero check for instruments should be performed before daily use and after sampling high-particle emissions. Sampling loss due to particles deposited in sampling tubes can be lowered by using conductive tubing and minimizing tubing length and bends in the tubing. The sampling location should be considered carefully, because nanoparticles diffuse rapidly through the workplace air. The choice of sampling location could have a large influence on the sampling results. The sampling ports must be kept as close as possible to the emission source.

Current Strategies for Engineering Controls in Nanomaterial Production and Downstream Handling Processes

57