Literature DB >> 27808662

Elemental properties of coal slag and measured airborne exposures at two coal slag processing facilities.

Christopher Mugford1, Randy Boylstein1, Jenna L Gibbs1,2.   

Abstract

In 1974, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health recommended a ban on the use of silica sand abrasives containing >1% silica due to the risk of silicosis. This gave rise to substitutes including coal slag. An Occupational Safety and Health Administration investigation in 2010 uncovered a case cluster of suspected pneumoconiosis in four former workers at a coal slag processing facility in Illinois, possibly attributable to occupational exposure to coal slag dust. This article presents the results from a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health industrial hygiene survey at the same coal slag processing facility and a second facility. The industrial hygiene survey consisted of the collection of: (a) bulk samples of unprocessed coal slag, finished granule product, and settled dust for metals and silica; (b) full-shift area air samples for dust, metals, and crystalline silica; and (c) full-shift personal air samples for dust, metals, and crystalline silica. Bulk samples consisted mainly of iron, manganese, titanium, and vanadium. Some samples had detectable levels of arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, and cobalt. Unprocessed coal slags from Illinois and Kentucky contained 0.43-0.48% (4,300-4,800 mg/kg) silica. Full-shift area air samples identified elevated total dust levels in the screen (2-38 mg/m3) and bag house (21 mg/m3) areas. Full-shift area air samples identified beryllium, chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, nickel, manganese, and vanadium. Overall, personal air samples for total and respirable dust (0.1-6.6 mg/m3 total; and 0.1-0.4 mg/m3 respirable) were lower than area air samples. All full-shift personal air samples for metals and silica were below published occupational exposure limits. All bulk samples of finished product granules contained less than 1% silica, supporting the claim coal slag may present less risk for silicosis than silica sand. We note that the results presented here are solely from two coal slag processing facilities, and more in-depth air monitoring is needed to better characterize occupational exposure to coal slag dust, metals, and silica at similar facilities.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Abrasive substitutes; coal slag; pneumoconiosis

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27808662      PMCID: PMC5391280          DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1254783

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  16 in total

1.  Environmental impact of a coal combustion-desulphurisation plant: abatement capacity of desulphurisation process and environmental characterisation of combustion by-products.

Authors:  E Alvarez-Ayuso; X Querol; A Tomás
Journal:  Chemosphere       Date:  2006-08-04       Impact factor: 7.086

2.  Comparison of occupational exposures among painters using three alternative blasting abrasives.

Authors:  John D Meeker; Pam Susi; Anthony Pellegrino
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2006-09       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Exposure to crystalline silica in abrasive blasting operations where silica and non-silica abrasives are used.

Authors:  Diane L Radnoff; Michelle K Kutz
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2013-12-18

Review 4.  Pneumoconiosis: comparison of imaging and pathologic findings.

Authors:  Semin Chong; Kyung Soo Lee; Myung Jin Chung; Joungho Han; O Jung Kwon; Tae Sung Kim
Journal:  Radiographics       Date:  2006 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 5.333

Review 5.  State-of-the-science review of the occupational health hazards of crystalline silica in abrasive blasting operations and related requirements for respiratory protection.

Authors:  Amy K Madl; Ellen P Donovan; Shannon H Gaffney; Meg A McKinley; Emily C Moody; John L Henshaw; Dennis J Paustenbach
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health B Crit Rev       Date:  2008-08       Impact factor: 6.393

6.  Case cluster of pneumoconiosis at a coal slag processing facility.

Authors:  Kathleen M Fagan; Erin B Cropsey; Jenna L Armstrong
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  2015-05       Impact factor: 2.214

7.  Comparative pulmonary toxicity of 6 abrasive blasting agents.

Authors:  A F Hubbs; N S Minhas; W Jones; M Greskevitch; L A Battelli; D W Porter; W T Goldsmith; D Frazer; D P Landsittel; J Y Ma; M Barger; K Hill; D Schwegler-Berry; V A Robinson; V Castranova
Journal:  Toxicol Sci       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 4.849

8.  Metal exposure among abrasive blasting workers at four U.S. Air Force facilities.

Authors:  V Aizenberg; E England; S Grinshpun; K Willeke; G Carlton
Journal:  Appl Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2000-10

9.  Comparative pulmonary toxicity of blasting sand and five substitute abrasive blasting agents.

Authors:  Dale W Porter; Ann F Hubbs; Victor A Robinson; Lori A Battelli; Mark Greskevitch; Mark Barger; Douglas Landsittel; William Jones; Vincent Castranova
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health A       Date:  2002-08-23

10.  Fibrogenic potentials of coal slags used as abrasive blasting substitutes.

Authors:  L E Stettler; R A Salomon; S F Platek; W J Moorman; J C Clark; E F Krieg; F C Phipps
Journal:  J Toxicol Environ Health       Date:  1995-07
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.