Evaluation of two portable lead-monitoring methods at mining sites

Two methods for measuring airborne lead using field-portable instruments have been developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Method 7702 uses X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and Method 7701 employs ultrasonic extraction (UE) followed by anodic stripping voltammetry (A...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of hazardous materials 2003-08, Vol.102 (1), p.29-38
Main Authors: Drake, Pamela L, Lawryk, Nicholas J, Ashley, Kevin, Sussell, Aaron L, Hazelwood, Kyle J, Song, Ruiguang
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Air Pollutants - analysis
Anodic stripping voltammetry
Environmental Monitoring - instrumentation
Humans
Lead
Lead - analysis
Mining
Occupational Health
Portable analysis
Sensitivity and Specificity
Spectrometry, X-Ray Emission
Spectrophotometry, Atomic
Ultrasonic extraction
X-ray fluorescence
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Two methods for measuring airborne lead using field-portable instruments have been developed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH): Method 7702 uses X-ray fluorescence (XRF), and Method 7701 employs ultrasonic extraction (UE) followed by anodic stripping voltammetry (ASV). The two portable methods were evaluated at mining sites. Area air samples were collected throughout two mills where ore from nearby mines was processed; the primary constituent of the ore was lead sulfide (galena). The air samples were collected on 37 mm mixed cellulose ester membrane filters housed within plastic filter cassettes. At the end of the work shift, the cassettes were collected and taken to a room off-site for analysis by the two portable methods. The filter samples were first analyzed by XRF and then by UE/ASV. Calibration was verified on both instruments according to standard procedures. The samples were then sent for confirmatory analysis via flame atomic absorption spectrometry (FAAS) according to NIOSH Method 7082. Pairwise comparisons between the methods using the paired t-test showed no statistically significant differences between ASV and FAAS ( P>0.05); however, the comparison between XRF and FAAS was statistically significant ( P0.96), suggesting that they are suitable as screening methods for airborne lead at mining sites.
ISSN:0304-3894
1873-3336
DOI:10.1016/S0304-3894(03)00200-0