Search

Surface wipe sampling in the occupational environment is a technique widely used by industrial hygienists. Although several organizations have promulgated standards for sampling lead and other metals, uncertainty still exists when trying to determine an appropriate wipe sampling strategy and how to interpret sampling results. Investigators from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) Health Hazard Evaluation Program have used surface wipe sampling as part of their exposure assessment sampling strategies in a wide range of workplaces. This article discusses wipe sampling for measuring lead on surfaces in three facilities: (1) a battery recycling facility; (2) a firing range and gun store; and (3) an electronic scrap recycling facility. We summarize our findings from the facilities and what we learned by integrating wipe sampling into our sampling plan. Wiping sampling demonstrated lead in non-production surfaces in all three workplaces and that the potential that employees were taking lead home to their families existed. We also found that the presence of metals such as tin can interfere with the colorimetric results. We also discuss the advantages and disadvantages of colorimetric analysis of surface wipe samples and the challenges we faced when interpreting wipe sampling results.

Closed-face 37-mm polystyrene cassettes are often used for exposure monitoring of metal particulates. Several methods have been proposed to account for the wall loss in air sampling cassettes, including rinsing, wiping, within-cassette dissolution, and an internal capsule fused to the filter that could be digested with the filter. Until internal capsules replace filters, other methods for assessing wall losses may be considered. To determine if rinsing and wiping or wiping alone is adequate to determine wall losses on cassettes, we collected 54 full-shift area air samples at a battery recycling facility. We collected six replicate samples at three locations within the facility for three consecutive days. The wall losses of three replicate cassettes from each day-location were analyzed following a rinse and two consecutive wipes. The wall losses of the other three replicates from each day-location were analyzed following two consecutive wipes only. Mixed-cellulose ester membrane filter, rinse, and wipes were analyzed separately following NIOSH Method 7303. We found an average of 29% (range: 8-54%) recovered lead from the cassette walls for all samples. We also found that rinsing prior to wiping the interior cassette walls did not substantially improve recovery of wall losses compared to wiping alone. A rinse plus one wipe recovered on average 23% (range: 13-33%) of the lead, while one wipe alone recovered on average 21% (range: 16-22%). Similarly, we determined that a second wipe did not provide substantial additional recovery of lead (average: 4%, range: 0.4-19%) compared to the first wipe disregarding the rinse (average: 18%, range: 4-39%). We concluded that when an internal capsule is not used, wall losses of lead dust in air sampling cassettes can be adequately recovered by wiping the internal wall surfaces of the cassette with a single wipe.

Gasoline tracers were collected on solid-phase microextraction (SPME) fibers and analyzed by capillary gas chromatography with photoionization detector (GC/PID). This was part of a larger study to quantify personal exposure to motor vehicle gasoline evaporative and combustive emissions in high-end exposure microenvironments (MEs). The SPME fiber selected for this application was a 75-microm carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane. Sequential 10-min samples were collected for measurement of benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and ortho-, meta-, and para-xylene in different MEs in Atlanta, GA, in summer 2002 and Reno, NV, in spring 2003. Field calibrations were performed with certified gas standards in 1-L Tedlar bags for varying concentrations and exposure times. SPME detection limits were approximately 0.2 ppbv with a precision of 3-17% and accuracy of 30%. A dynamic system was designed for temperature and relative humidity calibrations, with corrections for the effects of these variables performed when necessary. SPME data compared satisfactorily with integrated canister samples, continuous PID, and field portable mass spectrometer data.