Effect of interferents on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors

<div><p>Direct-reading organic vapor monitors are often used to measure volatile organic compound concentrations in complex chemical gas mixtures. However, there is a paucity of data on the impact of multiple gases on monitor performance, even though it is known that monitor sensitivity may vary by chemical. This study investigated the effects of interferents on the performance of the MIRAN SapphIRe Portable Ambient Air Analyzer (SAP) and Century Portable Toxic Vapor Analyzer (TVA-1000) when sampling a specific agent of interest (cyclohexane). The TVA-1000 contained a dual detector: a photoionization detector (PID) and a flame ionization detector (FID). Three devices of each monitor were challenged with different combinations of cyclohexane and potential interferent vapors (hexane, methyl ethyl ketone, trichloroethylene, and toluene) at 21°C and 90% relative humidity (RH), an extreme environmental condition. Five replicates at four target concentrations were tested: 30, 150, 300, and 475 ppm. Multiple proportions of cyclohexane to interferent enabled the determination of the interferent effect on monitor performance. The monitor concentrations were compared to reference concentrations measured using NIOSH Method 1500. Three scenarios were investigated: no response factor, cyclohexane response factor, and weighted-mixed response factor applied. False negatives occurred more frequently for PID (21.1%), followed by FID (4.8%) and SAP (0.2%). Measurements from all monitors generally had a positive bias compared to the reference measurements. Some monitor measurements exceeded twice the reference concentrations: PID (36.8%), SAP (19.8%), and FID (6.3%). Evaluation of the 95% confidence intervals indicated that performance of all monitors varied by concentration. In addition, the performance of the PID and SAP varied by presence of an interfering compound, especially toluene and hexane for the PID and trichloroethylene for the SAP. Variability and bias associated with all these monitors preclude supplanting traditional sorbent-based tube methods for measuring volatile organic compounds (VOCs), especially for compliance monitoring.</p><p>Implications: <i>Industrial hygienists need to use care when using any of the three monitor detection types to measure the concentration of unknown chemical mixtures. Monitor performance is affected by the presence of interferents. Application of manufacturer recommended response factors may not adequately scale measurements to minimize monitor bias when compared to standard reference methods. Users should calibrate their monitors to a known reference method prior to use, if possible. Each of the monitors has its own limitations, which should be considered to ensure quality measurements are reported.</i></p></div

Emission of particulate matter from a desktop three-dimensional (3D) printer

<p>Desktop three-dimensional (3D) printers are becoming commonplace in business offices, public libraries, university labs and classrooms, and even private homes; however, these settings are generally not designed for exposure control. Prior experience with a variety of office equipment devices such as laser printers that emit ultrafine particles (UFP) suggests the need to characterize 3D printer emissions to enable reliable risk assessment. The aim of this study was to examine factors that influence particulate emissions from 3D printers and characterize their physical properties to inform risk assessment. Emissions were evaluated in a 0.5-m³ chamber and in a small room (32.7 m³) using real-time instrumentation to measure particle number, size distribution, mass, and surface area. Factors evaluated included filament composition and color, as well as the manufacturer-provided printer emissions control technologies while printing an object. Filament type significantly influenced emissions, with acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) emitting larger particles than polylactic acid (PLA), which may have been the result of agglomeration. Geometric mean particle sizes and total particle (TP) number and mass emissions differed significantly among colors of a given filament type. Use of a cover on the printer reduced TP emissions by a factor of 2. Lung deposition calculations indicated a threefold higher PLA particle deposition in alveoli compared to ABS. Desktop 3D printers emit high levels of UFP, which are released into indoor environments where adequate ventilation may not be present to control emissions. Emissions in nonindustrial settings need to be reduced through the use of a hierarchy of controls, beginning with device design, followed by engineering controls (ventilation) and administrative controls such as choice of filament composition and color.</p

Characterization of chemical contaminants generated by a desktop fused deposition modeling 3-dimensional Printer

<p>Printing devices are known to emit chemicals into the indoor atmosphere. Understanding factors that influence release of chemical contaminants from printers is necessary to develop effective exposure assessment and control strategies. In this study, a desktop fused deposition modeling (FDM) 3-dimensional (3-D) printer using acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) or polylactic acid (PLA) filaments and two monochrome laser printers were evaluated in a 0.5 m³ chamber. During printing, chamber air was monitored for vapors using a real-time photoionization detector (results expressed as isobutylene equivalents) to measure total volatile organic compound (TVOC) concentrations, evacuated canisters to identify specific VOCs by off-line gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis, and liquid bubblers to identify carbonyl compounds by GC-MS. Airborne particles were collected on filters for off-line analysis using scanning electron microscopy with an energy dispersive x-ray detector to identify elemental constituents. For 3-D printing, TVOC emission rates were influenced by a printer malfunction, filament type, and to a lesser extent, by filament color; however, rates were not influenced by the number of printer nozzles used or the manufacturer's provided cover. TVOC emission rates were significantly lower for the 3-D printer (49–3552 µg h⁻¹) compared to the laser printers (5782–7735 µg h⁻¹). A total of 14 VOCs were identified during 3-D printing that were not present during laser printing. 3-D printed objects continued to off-gas styrene, indicating potential for continued exposure after the print job is completed. Carbonyl reaction products were likely formed from emissions of the 3-D printer, including 4-oxopentanal. Ultrafine particles generated by the 3-D printer using ABS and a laser printer contained chromium. Consideration of the factors that influenced the release of chemical contaminants (including known and suspected asthmagens such as styrene and 4-oxopentanal) from a FDM 3-D printer should be made when designing exposure assessment and control strategies.</p