An evaluation of total and inhalable samplers for the collection of wood dust in three wood products industries.

In 1998 the American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) proposed size selective sampling for wood dust based on the inhalable fraction. Thus the proposed threshold limit values (TLVs) require the use of a sampler whose performance matches the inhalable convention. The Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) sampler has shown good agreement with the inhalable convention under controlled conditions, and the Button sampler, developed by the University of Cincinnati, has shown reasonable agreement in at least one laboratory study. The Button sampler has not been previously evaluated under wood working conditions, and the IOM has been shown to sample more mass than expected when compared to the standard closed-face cassette, which may be due to the collection of very large particles in wood working environments. Some projectile particles may be > 100 microm aerodynamic diameter and thus outside the range of the convention. Such particles, if present, can bias the estimates of concentration considerably. This study is part of an on-going research focus into selecting the most appropriate inhalable sampler for use in these industries, and to examine the impact of TLV changes. This study compared gravimetric analyses (National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Method 0500) of side-by-side personal samples using the Button, IOM, and 37 mm closed-face cassette (CFC) under field-use conditions. A total of 51 good sample pairs were collected from three wood products industries involved in the manufacturing of cabinets, furniture, and shutters. Paired t-tests were run on each sample pair using Statistical Package for the Social Sciences (SPSS) version 10. The IOM and the CFC measured statistically different concentrations (p < 0.0005, n = 16). The IOM and Button measured statistically different concentrations (p = 0.020, n = 12). The Button and CFC did not measure statistically different concentrations of wood dust (p = 0.098, n = 23). Sampler ratios for IOM/CFC pairs ranged from 1.19-19 (median 3.35). Sampler ratios for IOM/Button pairs ranged from 0.49-163 (median 3.15). Sampler ratios for CFC/Button pairs ranged from 0.36-27 (median 1.2). In all cases, higher ratios were associated with higher concentrations. The median relative difference between the IOM's and CFC's is in accord with prior field studies in woodworking environments, and, taken together, the data imply a conversion factor greater than the 2.5 normally applied to CFC results to approximate inhalable values, as measured by the IOM. Raising the limit values by approximately 50% appears warranted for this particular situation of inhalable wood dust measured by the IOM. The IOM/Button and CFC/Button ratios were unexpectedly low, which may be due to the exclusion of very large particles, collected by the IOM and CFC samplers. Further work is required to explain these results.