文章基本信息

标题：Assessment of occupational exposure to gaseous peracetic acid
本地全文：下载
作者：Stefano Dugheri ; Stefano Dugheri ; Alessandro Bonari 等
期刊名称：International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health
印刷版ISSN：1232-1087
电子版ISSN：1896-494X
出版年度：2018
卷号：31
期号：4
页码：527-535
DOI：10.13075/ijomeh.1896.01166
语种：English
出版社：Walter de Gruyter GmbH
摘要：Objectives In order to assess short-term exposure to peracetic acid (PAA) in disinfection processes, the Authors compared 4 industrial hygiene monitoring methods to evaluate their proficiency in measuring airborne PAA concentrations. Material and Methods An active sampling by basic silica gel impregnated with methyl p-tolyl sulfoxide (MTSO), a passive solid phase micro-extraction technique using methyl p-tolyl sulfide (MTS) as on-fiber derivatization reagent, an electrochemical direct-reading PAA monitor, and a novel visual test strip PAA detector doped with 2,2’-azino-bis (3-ethylbenzothiazoline)-6-sulfonate were evaluated and tested over the range of 0.06–16 mg/m3, using dynamically generated PAA air concentrations. Results The linear regression analysis of linearity and accuracy showed that the 4 methods were suitable for PAA monitoring. Peracetic acid monitoring in several use applications showed that the PAA concentration (1.8 mg/m3) was immediately dangerous to life or health as proposed by the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, and was frequently exceeded in wastewater treatment (up to 7.33 mg/m3), and sometimes during food and beverage processes and hospital high-level disinfection operations (up to 6.8 mg/m3). Conclusions The methods were suitable for the quick assessment of acute exposure in PAA environmental monitoring and can assist in improving safety and air quality in the workplace where this disinfectant is used. These monitoring methods allowed the evaluation of changes to work out practices to reduce PAA vapor concentrations during the operations when workers are potentially overexposed to this strong antioxidant agent. Int J Occup Med Environ Health 2018;31(4):527–535