Comparative Study on the Efficiency Test Using Remodeled Bubble Generating Pump for Aquarium Fish and Established Air Sampling Pump

$ q $ g q ~ : ~ q q x l 41153 3 3 (m5q 12%) J Korean Scc Occup Environ Hyg m5;15(3):183- 191

Comparative Study on the EXciency Test Using Remodeled Bubble Generating Pump for Aquarium Fish and Established Air Sampling Pump

Bong-Ki Jang 9

.

Jae-Young Chun

.

Bu-Soon Son

.

Jong-Wha Lee

.

Jong-An Park Department of Environmental Health Science, S o o n c w a n g University

This study is designed to compare the performance of established samplers (personal air sampler and MiniVOL poaable air sampler) commonly used in the air environment or work environment with that of the sampler made by remodehg the air bubble generator for aquarium fishes. Sampling method used in this study is the filter collection method for PMlO and total suspended particles (TSP), the liquid collection method for sulfur dioxide (SOz) and nitrogen dioxide (NOz), and the solid collection method for toluene, respectively. There is not a significant difference in the average concentration of TSP between the Gian personal air sampler (1 4 0.3 16 10.095; 2nd 0.191 kO.090; 3rd, 0.185 i0.073 mg/m3) and the remodeled sampler (lst, 0.3 17 i0.106, 2nd 0.201 i 0.050; 3rd 0.189 2 0.081 mg/m3). There are also not ~ i ~ c a n t differences in the average concentration of PMlO among the Gilian personal air sampler (0.058 k 0.006 d n f ) , the remodeled sampler (0.052 k 0.008 d m 3 ) and the MiniVOL p d l e air sampler (0.054 i 0.007 m$nf). The average concentration of the SO2 by the established sampler and the remodeled one is 3.79 k0.21 ppb and 3.45 i0.15 ppb, respectively. In addition, there are not sigmficant differences in the average concentration of the NO2 between the Gilian personal air sampler (lst, 0.325 10.068; 2nd

0.341 10.206; 3rd, 2.971 20.078 \~g/mn~) and the remodeled sampler (lst, 0.300 k0.062; 2nd 0.332 iO.144, 3rd 2.%8

+

0.085 pdrn3). There are not sigruficant differences in the average concentration of toluene between the G h personal air sampler (lst, 0.499 k0.072; 2nd 0.598 i0.112; 3rd 2.284 i0.077 fig/

rn3

and the remodeled sampler (lst, 0.463i0.133; 2nd 0.603 kO.082; 3rd 2.353 l o . 115 dm3). From these results, we can conclude that the performance of the remodeled sampler is not different fiom that of established samplers. There is possibiity that the remodeled sampler can be used as a alternative device for Gilian personal air sampler in area and personal air sampling.

Key Words : air sampling pump, eficiency test, remodeled bubble generating pump, personal and area sampling

a 7 l A l i Z

f l + ) q E + +71q

%-$

g a g g 9 - g 3j48171 44 % 3 @

A] i~

31 4 QH

41 (sampling media)

6-l) %71 E +pi+ +%OZ 74-8140s ~4

+ 22

⁵⁷¹

%97]73., 581

h)"d-Lq -l$4%1611Aj A ] Z E

2jqg

+ 25% h)%6114 Y q A l 3 + ⁹

+ 9n.g

^7H9h)S- 3{qgr(personal air sampling pump) +3

@q. 3

31

n

34 2s

^{7 ~ 9}

% l q g n +

^{~ 1 ~}

ShenvoodS+ Greenhalgh(1960)

4 4 4

3 j . l g o ~

74@5;l%q.

⁰¹

g n + 5

3717)

gqq3 -S?-q4 747)

0)

t-ZxFq7ll q - $ A l 4

-l84%141

~j

A l a s

%j#g

+ 9 s q 3 9 q

%iq.

3 71 A]

a 41 4 9

z ( a i r sampling

pump)e

~ l a 4 f l ~ H 4 p l l ~ 9 ~ 3 %

$+ZjOZ

%{fl8)k

$ 4 + A l s .

314

@Jq

611

01-$gq.

34)

AX+!q3 3

+ ^{qygq 7Hg}

2 7 1 ~ 1 s

i{#g n ng$

8 ~ 1 3 o]+t

7 ) % 3 + ²

y L

qg-7)"+4-

5 8 7 1 7 )

3 q q q 9q.

719

$ 7 1 ~ 1 3

~ { # g z + qq

zj

-fi- 99

noow flow pump)

9

3

+%?I

frlhlgh flow pump)z

LF;.- ol4 q. ag"1 zj+~'Ed"~O.oo1-0.2

Plminq

-lqol1"1 q%qz 9s 8 qag

01-$@

$71q 715 44 oil h)-$gq. 3 + % g E + 3 3 4 2 Z

0.5

elmin

611 ~j 1 P Imin, 3,4 H+ 5

e

Iminflxlq - l 4 6 1 1 A j

q % r l q

f Z

q q x ] g

^0]-$@

gx\*g2q 344

"11

4-$Elq. ⁰¹

tl@

$%

4611s +

% a $ n5g q %A]

⁷¹

4 q-

^{E+ 01}

s yqA]gOsq zj+% 9 x + %

zag

^Ef

$%A]% + 2%

%%

n(multip1e flow pump) 5 7H

35;l 61 2q.

^{0 1 s}

g n s g 4 % 'gq 4611

Aj %*+ +$$OZ

E 3 3 + ^3q.

42611% zj%$*q 44 a q q

+

^i$$$%%%

^{448)71 44}

^-fi-;-801

3 x 1 4 2 s 41olqol 9 3 @ +%01 -i+lq+ gn7) z g q ~ . 8x14

$)q

E+

+ ⁹

^?$Aj (electronic flow or pressuresellsor)7)

4gqq 261 54

714 -19,

$5,

x r , AlaY'i;F 5 4 4 % $3611 q;H%ijFq +%% 9 4 4

A1 41

ol @q.

DuPont

4,

MSAh), SKch)

%qAj 0)4@ 3%

;cla%uH 43 2 q .

971

gn+

^+qaq]

9

&.g ==%

idcl -$f-+!& % 5

^i-01

~

71

4@ q 4 2 Z 94 _h)-$qq %

q.

^01s 7flE8)$, f 271

+"d

qg41

5"s ^$448]Y!

^{A ] i Z}

£4

3%1Z

014-3 e 37-11 qq.

01 $A] 9-Z A l i Z

£4321 5 7)4

⁰¹

~ j g i ~ " r 4 , o o o w l ~ j

^10,000~ 0 1 ~ ~ )

q q g ~ ~ l a

gn,~ d i l 7 1 ~

Ala 3~4611 61-$2 + ^{3 q}

³

⁵⁹

gY!

$ 7 6 1 ] A j 0 6 ) s i-h]iZ E471Z

4-$4

^{$ +-+}

5,

1991).

3 q q 71g4

$%$$ A ] 3 3 { # 714

Hla.iiFq

³ .'J*

4 ~ 8 ) q g 3 A l a s ~ 4 W 4 %"llr

97

8)x 0 1 4 &g$

o)--"?

3%

4 %di.

q + A j

3

$'F+

4 q.'d4 4

01

9 9 8

³⁷¹

314 gnpF 84-17)

$31 ")-$8)k

g*q-$ +q

3 $71 7]E34 ^{7 1 s}

7Haqq

9-Z

A l Z % { #

'51"s q71 5 "dp$ g

3 1 7

z 4

7

141% 3 3 % +

^{717lSZ A]}

9s % 9 @ 93Ed4

E4~H41s

x48)q g q @ gqg

H l Z $E8)

brl QaA1aq

x]qA]iZ %j# A]

4

* 01

ZF$

mqgz $dgdiJq5! 77134qg7k q$Y?z@] gylgq413

x]

$g q q

$%,%)

2%

4+g:2004$123 3 0 g , jlqg: 20059 1 2 3 7 9

zi!@j~) : 3971

?-pJ.']

+j%$ :!qd 646$x]

$&QL~#qii!

@g&zjqq Tel : 041-530-1268, Fax : 041-530-1272, E-mail : [email protected])

a!iFq-$ +$a ^{471 71E%-A871}

(9 DK-8000, r;H

%a

x)$

9

^A))

4 a71 &$yg61] 8 % 938)q

7HE

@

gn(ol8)

^7Hz@

~ ] a 3 ] 4 7 ] ,

Remodeled pump+

71$4 41%

o ~^{$ 2 0 1} ~

agg

j

7H9~1s. 314

71

9

constant flow air sampling pump (Gillianh) , GilAir-3, u]

7.)

.g A)-$ ijF

q , 599 83Ea4

²⁷¹

⁹⁹³ 44 % 5 S q4£;zdqoZ$y-fi- 24 %(TSP)q z$.'Jga

^$+(PMio)

g, q;711e4qos p1gggzj-s -$8)q

o ] * * ~ S 0 2 ) q

0)$*3&

(N@)S,

z41E4qoz 339ag AI-w)q S?$! % S Z

^%F

ZFZF 3444

Lq A j Z

qz 83 E a q s

x \ ) q i ~ j

n4q-x

^UH

n+plp~q ZF ZF

57Hq

g z s , ~1s-314

$3

30cm

o ] q q 34 4dli)rq

*%

xlol 5 9 @ 83Z4(71P, $?

5,

71%, A]iZ%S %)q A l a s

3

;zdqq % r s gq@ 34s

^{H ~ Z}

Sd71-8) sq.

1)

g n +% 24 *J%

7 1 ~ 9 gnq 71Eq 9ZS 5%

d 3 % A ] 7 ] 3 , +3@Jq

611

qq 4 3@ ~141ZAj q 4 4 , &q81 ^%C

H+ X-" a T

q%

93

9

gzj (impinger)

s gfF-611 $a@ ^{*d4Aj $x)4}

4

g u ] ~j(Gillian primary low calibmtor,

P-

N

800266-1)s 0]-$8)q += ⁵⁴

8mq. 93

A l 3 L q

AliZ 2 4

$611

r

@&

*JqoE +w ^q38)q

q$+$$% 9 4 q - 9 q .

(a) Electronic bubble pump for (b) Remodeled (c) Remodeled pump internal

aquarium Pump image

Fig. 1. Remodeled pump.

(diaphragm)

$24 $ 4 5

oJ$%

3

941, @E

qyq a%@] 4 2 g

+7)g 8%

gg7)

$-t;]x

⁺²

9 271

" , g A j 2717)

8qqiI 4%

901

o ) q s

4 4 9 3 w4

g227)

9qiI +$4

9227)

gEqq/\l

^{A ) S}

271s X;a'%)A] $ w i g . 1).

3)

7p4

h]Sirj# 71 (Established pump)

7 4 ~ 3 ~ h ] s i r H +

714

^{H J Z}

471

4% 7lEq ~lgirR4 7 1 ~ 4 2

3711

q$ga

^{h l g x;a'h] g o ] A)}

%qII-

%+

7 H 9 ~ 1 ~

?447)9

Gdlian

A 1 4

A] gj]

4

71 (Gilh-3)

01

$%)%il,

3 q q

$x1

q -14

Ad

++

'&jo)!27]

4

51 portable air sampler (MiniVol, AIRmetricsA))(Fig. 2)

s

^{4-$S)iFSd q .}

Table 1 4 Q,Fp ~361!01]Aj

47129

$ 3 ~ 1 % % ( 3 G ? ,

20031611

aF+

TSPpF P M I o ~

%w4

q+$ o]$S) 9 3 , -"?&&i#p. ^L T O Z - L M ~ "sJ!-%uFH~

ffl6+z+gs q + ~ ) P Q q O s $4

'i;F%Q. zF?ll,Fp NIOSH(1994)

HJq

611

q+ g~dggg

o1$% x d l r 4

~ O I r;a's)q

7 ) ~ 3 1 ~ ) ~ 3 4 q

(Shimadzu, GC-17A) I

2 4 81% r;F. -

1) TSP, PMIO

$3BJq

Fig. 2. Portable air sampler (Mi n Nol ).

gy+g

$(TSP)i+ 3%

4

( P M I o ) ~

%s+ 48

37 ^mm,

$8

0.8

pmq

cellulose ester membrane filters 3- piece cassette 611

%qS)q

6 h]7,F%O,F

% E s $38)9On], PMIO S 3 h J o l J

2

lOmm

q g g

A)o)jZg+ cassetteq]

4-qS\%r;F. hlSirj;HW-$s TSP+ 1 Qlmin, PMIoP 1.7 QIminOI

$!38]q

r ; a ' q B s z;a'g

q4~12

q 1 ~ 1 4 o l ~ j q l ~ j 2 4 ~ 1 3

43 _P %mY?+j

2s 3 4 8 ) B q . 2 4 ~ 1 3 PMloq

x

fi 45)q

+ g o ] 5 Q l m i n g portable air sampler (MmVol, AlRrnebics

A D S ~]$-E)%z,

q 4 4 4

^pallflex

membrane filter (47 rnm, Gelman sciences hF)S ^Ol$S)dcJ qlh1711OIEj 46114

2) So2

+d'g%

( q q z 3 ) g g q )

- $ q I &q

$gxj(rnidget impinger ) 611

$+q

(potassium tetra- chloromercurate, TCM ) 10mQ

s

^$3,

+$

g5q %q

0.5 QIminqAj 1 Qlrninq + E I

g3 -f;-qq

^271s

+++~13

331% so2

s

^{% + A ]}

S)q, 01 a+qg

palamdmoz $$+$ A)$

* ^g

3) No2

$;FjUJq

(* $zy#)

$+ ⁹⁴⁹

^[n-(1-

Naphthy 1) Ethylene diamine oJ

9 + ⁹

^,

sulfadic acid

9 32

gv9j] 10 mQ

s

dq-rjl 4814

g + g q l $3 0.4 Q 1 g q

-f;-92s

S 7 1 h l S S

5 4 h l

3r;F. N 0 2 q q HJsI]'E)scJ

%+$4

o i E t m ) sS-7) 71 A1

3-dcl 9q @

$44 $grs

550 nrnoll ~j

bcJ

N o 2 % E s 7sFBr;F.

4)

gFg

^{+3BJ% (%Ad} q g q ) NIOSH

4 33

A] $

q

(Method No.

1500) 611

4 31 01 Fq 30

W I O S H , 1994),

BAdggS 4 - 4 g 2 1 40)

7

Table 1. Analvsis and measurement method

Measurement Agent of Analpcal Flow Sampling No. of samples

method -led method ( l lrnin) time (hrs.1 Established Remodeled

sampler m l e r

TSP Weighmg 1 6 5 5

Fdtration

PMIO Weighing 1.7 6 5 5

Liquid SOz PmsaniIine 0.5- 1 6 5 5

sampling NOz Griess- 0.4 6 5

Saltzman 5

Solid

sampling Toluene ^Charcoal

tuWGC-FID

x \ s q gqp

SPSS 12.0% 0]+B)

6cl 7HzB

^{A 1 a}

£4714

7 1 W -11

a £4714 9 3 2+ 344

3

401 34% HIE+ %d143%9

W ~ X O I I signed rank test(@Aj

34

71, m1.Z

58%Mq.

Table 2. Rate of flow change of established pump

Sampling Flow ( l Irnin)

No. Rate of

material Before (B) After (A) change (%)*

PMio 30 1.680 i 0.343 1.670 i0.345 0.60

TSP 30 0.920 i0.133 0.908 k0.151 1.30

No2 30 1.007kO.019 1.002i0.054 0.50

So2 30 0.819 t 0.294 0.804 k0.300 1.83

Toluene 26 0.207 k0.013 0.200 iO.006 3.38

* : Rate o f charge (96) =

B

Table 3. Rate of flow change of remodeled pump

sampling No. Flow ( elmin) Rate of

material Before After change(%)

Toluene 26 0.230 k0.050 0.220 i0.044 4.35

7 3 7 $ +

4 $qS ?5%q4 P3)$q611

Z (Table 2) $+ 0.50 -3.38% S 01

33

o,F f

pg4 3 q.

@233(OSHA,1998)g.L-?

~ J q q ~ j ~lail]Wq3bl]~-l

%$j%F% 7)%

4]1Jh@

33 +?$+ @@gg

+5% P Z 9 x 1 5

1j#+gOS, A]g?I]#

71

3 06]Ll101%q. 5% %47! 271%$+4 4q

55%

7flE9

~]5;3]]# 71qA-11; g3 a, qkg7)%\2~{]A-l 719@q.

271 %

P

-$$+@3+Wable3)&0.11-4.35% % E ~ ~ J J B ) ~ ]

q q ~ j 5 3 7 ) Tz]

1) TSP H ] l

q q ~ l n q q s

o 1 8 s ) q TSPS

q39 $4

l q % ) q

g$$s+

⁷⁾

g ~1S314

⁷¹⁷¹ 0.316 I&TI', 7 1 3 9 A ] S % { ~ 717) 0.317 d m ' s

44

-$

A)%)%O

q,

2 q%l(0.191 mgld ^VS. 0.201 mdm3), 3

q

XK0.185 mpjm9~. 0.189 mgl m")+

7 1 3 9 A l S 3 1 4

7]q]Aj

Z % ~ L + 574]%&4 9

^-fi-G)

3

X)o]

4

$j%Wable 4).

4714

0.058 mdm30S AjjZ

3 6 1 1 -fi- 4 9

~ ) o ]

4

I + ~ L + X ] g g w a b l e 5).

++2$ 3

3 3 A J

gag

^A\$@)

q13 zqq Egg + 2% q 3 q E$cS

1Oclmo]S\9

s%)uj

A C G I H ~ J A ~ ~ qlxq] 50%$

q 4 4

g $ y 3 o ] 4 . 0 m 9

34%

Z S A J

gaqqz 3qS)z 2q

(ACGIH, 1993). Z$AJ

24

^A]

ACGIH

2

osHAq]Aj4 lOmm

49

z

~ ) o l S z % A F - $ ~ 414

-$W

1.7e lrnins %)qo+

9qx %I+. 01 3%

ACGIH 3 3 A J

24

3%7]$

4 n443.11 q5

3o]Wippmann, 1989).

g 9 7

q1 ~j A)+ @ portable MiniVOLs

0193

P M I o ~ PM254 ²⁴

4

Baldauf %2001)61]

4S)ccJ 4%@

2 q .

Chenie(2003),

t-5

3 2 0 0 4 ) 4

9

?"1 43)q ~ 1 q ~ l ~ s F 719~lat

qw

^+-l%oi

^LF

7 ~ ~ 0 1 1 q t ~ ~ j

461

7)

a& gg3A)4*?b1q7

3

7H94 TWWl IZFWE 3

Table 4. Comparison of TSP concentrations with established pump and remodeled pump

(unit :

mdm3)

First Second Third

Repeat Established Remodeled Established Remodeled Established Remodeled

sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler

Mean 0.316 0.317 0.191 0.201 0.185 0.189

f S.D t 0.095 t0.106 fO.090 k0.050 f 0.073 -t 0.08 1

N.S : Notsi~nificmce between establiskd s a m l e r a r d rermdeled s a n l ~ l e r b y W k o x o n sirmedrank test

Table 5. Comparisons of PMio concentrations with established P A ) S 3 { 4 4

/.d%q

2)617) pump, remodeled pump and MinNOL sampler (unit : nlg/m3)

$2 301

~J7)45jr;f.

6 hours 24 hours

Rep Established Remodeled Established Remodeled Minivol

sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler

3) So2 %5 H] l

qA]X"d$6]++%)q f 3 3

So2

4

'413%54 13j2)61Jr;l 71e

~1s

;iH

471

⁷⁾ 3.79 ppb, 7 1 ~ 3

A ~ s ~ H 4

7 1 5 3.45 p p b z

-+q3

2)0)7)

$9 r;F.

234 ^{3 )} (2.83 ppb vs. 2.99 ppb), 33j 2) (2.56 ppb vs. 2.55 ppb) 9 f

-+q 3

3)

61% $%Wable 6).

0)+$(!(1993)$ ³⁷¹ k$ S0.r 7,F

01

4Stl 4%

:F7qlAj A l S r 4

93s

AF$~);C]

23 q$g 613q q+

r ; 6 ' % i A l g

g ~ q g i 3 2 ~ q

%Eg

433

H) % g q , 7 J E

4

~ " 1 3 H q 7 l q +js

~1x3

$ 3 5 j q . N.S : Not significance between established sampler and remodeled sampler by 4)N@ +E

HIS

Wilcoxm signed rank test.

q j ) ~ a q P

o ) + + % ) q

S33

A 0 0

Z@ T

A-4,

T ) ~ A ] S ~ )

7 H q ~ )

A)++%)SOq

71Pq

Alg>Hq7]Q+ NOzq

g $ + ~ $

l q 2 ) o l J ~ j 7 1 ~

Sq 344 ~18)q 94

q q 9 r ; f X 7 H E 3 ~ ] S % j d 71

9

MiniVOLiZ

4

~ ) ~ > j 4 7 ] 7 ) 0.325 &/mi, 7 1 3 3 A]

8)%q. 3 4 4

+?glJAj?q A1

3

P O3 E

4

A ) g 2 H 4 7 1 4 0 . 3 0 0 1 r g l m 3 0 ~ ~ E + % O 4 7 E

1 1 4 5)q

7 1 3 3 ~ ] S 3 ] 4 7 1 q 71

4

, 2 q ³⁾ (0.341 ,.J$~'vs. 0.332 &/m3), Table 6. Comparison of SO2 concentrations with established pump and remodeled pump

(unit : ppb)

First Second Third

Established Remodeled Established Remodeled W l i s h e d Remodeled

sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler

Mean 3.79 3.45 2.83 2.99 2.56 2.55

kS.D k0.21 k0.15 k0.17 k 0.08 k0.08 k0.08

N.S : Not significance between established sampler and remodeled sampler by Wilcoxon signed rank test

Table 7. Comparison of NO2 concentrations with established pump and remodeled pump

(unit :

,udrn7)

First Second Third

Re* Established Remodeled Established Remodeled Established Remodeled

sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler

Mean 0.325 0.300 0.341 0.332 2.97 1 2.%8

f S.D k 0.068 f0.062 k0.206 +O. 144 k0.078 ^f 0.085

N.S : Not significance between established sampler and remodeled sampler by Wilcoxon signed rank test

334x1 (2.971 dm' vs. 2.968 @Im3) P 3343\ollAj 10eH?jl E

Z711 LFq9 fl LFq9 323- A J Z F g q . 7 2 %

@ 7

3% 3 s f3

% & 7 \ 1 , 2 3 4 3 ) ~ + 4 r-+S 5)Toluene+EH]X

*able 7). Z O ~ , ^X\%O]

q q 4

z o l o l ~ j 3 4 ] X ; T d % O S P Z S ) ~ w^.-TI- ~ k

Table 8. Comparison of to1 uene concentrations with established pump and remodeled pump

(unit : , d m J )

First Second Third

Repeat Established Remodeled Established Remodeled Established Remodeled

sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler sampler

Mean 0.449 0.463 0.598 0.603 2.284 2.353

kS.D k0.072 ^f 0.133 k0.112 k0.082 k0.077 f 0.115

- -- - - - - - - -- - - -

N.S : Not significance between established sampler and remodeled sampler by Wilcoxon signed rank test

toluene

4 ^-12

^{%S+ 7)e A]}

gi1 4.1714

71E9

4S3114

⁷¹

ZFZF

134 3\q]Aj 0.449 d m ' VS. 0.463 @lm; 2 343\q]Aj 0.598 d m 3 VS. 0.603 &m', 3

q

~\q]Aj 2.284 d m 3 VS. 2.353 @/m3C g E?

a49

^3\017\ %%%E 8).

3 q 3 \ 4

q3

Alq]?

579% g y

*+ qg01 gqa

01Pq] A l g g

n;Tdgo

1

HA^ %w\

~ 7 1 1

~ ~ e g

222

q 7 4 4 q .

5 7 )

5

-+7]$xj]

g xP;Xd5\2

^{H F H 0 kl}

o 1 A j 7\%

$4 _q-$q

&

*Jq+

MOSH(1994) 4) ~j 74

33

^{3 A j}

93 %

01q. 01

HJq+ 3qrq

30?rq1

3

P + 5 \ J l 9 ,

4i+$Zb

(bmkthmugh)

01

A]

gg 31 #

5\+ o&,

$ 5 ,

gr 5011

q t ~ ~ j

93% +

9q 4--%011 w 5 \ q 01

9'4tO,W%

5,

1994; q3+ji+ 3 5 4 , 1998).

42 A l S 3 1 4 $

gE7\ ",A

92

H J 3 0 1

-4

A h J g 3 1 4 71(%2

3

A]

s%]4

⁷¹ , passive sampler) 7) 71

%!q q ~ 1 Z 3

^571% %71$41

%$

7171s

7% 92 9q

^010]1

q 3 ^P 4

^Ad$ 9 7 m a r p e r p F b e l l , 1987;

t-5 5,

1994; q 3 + j %, 1 w ; 19%b,

E+x\S+ q eg,

1997;

q 9 qi+

$ 5 4 , 1998;

%3+ 5,

2002;

6)%$

5,

2004)0]

i$-gq~ 3

q.

⁰¹

3s qz1 2714 A ) s > ] q g

E7\

g q s

^+-7)$A]

nP;Xdg

$

9-

"d-$01

304

A]g% 3 j q q 42-01

q-F;

^HI*\* %@S_olAj +$

-aH g

9 7 q A j A]SX]# g E 1 A j

4 *

-$ 7\+$jo) q 7 \ @

7 1 ~ 9

3+Jq#

7]35$."J7]5

h)-$&%qq

~ j Z 9

$01

q 4 714 ^-1]E4l4 g3S

+ ^{3 0 ~ 1 614}

q 4 1 + 0 1

A\-$- 7)%9 3 q q .

144

^id+$

401

" , A % \ E ~

J l q A l

g

j ] ] q H & 4

"

²

^qg

^+%Ol]

^%*

^{%olJAj 3- $}

r .

1 1

⁹⁷⁴¹

3

~,sl

qa

⁰⁾ 51%

94

⁰¹

%cq,

-g

970114

n ; l d ~ l s q % 5 7 1 4 4 1 1

4%sq

g 3 z a q l A j

"]Fqa2."1

iL+?rqAjq ^Ad$

Iv. 3 s

QAJq$ ++g 71394

^71s

71 z%\q 9s

^A]g?]#

714

^{Ad* 71}

E4 d7]

% + q q Z $ a A l S S 2 38\71

481

^{hF$5\? +,,g$}

Xj1gq

719AlS 3 4 7 1 4

59 94~1414

g 3 a a q l A j

Mlx5\%q. qqz1 n

'"dq

^2.1 *+ga(TsP)i+ u ] 4

g

zl(PM10),

q4]P;Td%

0s

013qqt

( s ~ q o ~ g q 2 ~ @ ) g , ~ 3 l l r ; a '

y o 1 z7gg7 %!a\ q - s 32.

1 dcl;"lJl+

q7-F

37FJl Z $ a ( q S

Pil9

4-)ollAj , pH A1 u \ q

ZFZF

5144

g ~ g 3

15q$,

~]gjHq 7361 93

30cm 6144)

Z)q 421 5\rq q P z1q 593 g q ~ d

(718, G r , 715, ~ l s % r

514

-11

s g 245\q

E47]7]

34 3p]g 4.q+ *q

g q .

1. A l g

$32

8 ,

qq e# a9

';tlq+

7]E4 ~lz>14717\

0.50- 3.38% S o u j ,

p,Jq$ 71x9

"8715

^7HE9

A l S j 1 4 7 1 2

0.11- 4.35%4

% 4 g ef

5%

01 4 s

3\01 7) % % q .

2. TSpq qj$ %S+ 7 1 g q -11s

434714

7135% ~ ] g 3 ] 4 7 ]

qq

1

2) (0.316k0.095 mg'm' VS. 0.317k 0.106 dm3), 2 q A\ 0.191 k0.090 mdm' VS. 0.201 k0.050 mg'm3), 334 3) (0.185

+

0.073 d m 3 VS. 0.189 k0.08 1 dm') E-4- + A F ~ \ W .

3. P M I o ~ 6 A)~,F p;zd

~ 1 4 g$

%

71g4

A ] S A ] ~ ~ ] Q +

7 1 3 9

^A]

-L

g>]

471 Z)q

0.180k0.062 ,/m3, 0.204k0.066 mg/m'g

7 1 ~ 9

A ] S 31

4710114 "33

^%+

%Sg LFGLH%

0q g;t]]qzj 9

3\01?

2%

o q , 2 4 ~ 1 3

~ 4 ~ 1 4 g z % s g

-

H)ii!5)71

454

x ] ~ A ] S

jIq719

MiniVOL portable air sampler, 71

$4

.

"1SjH

4

⁷¹

2

71E9 A ) g 3 ]

q 714

PMIO

g z

% g g M J Z ~

34 qq

0.058 +0.006 mg/mP, 0.052 k0.008 mgfd, 0.054+0.07 m g l ~-$A\$ ' ~ ~

+$

Q

P

LFeLH3q.

4.

q

4lP;Td

q s

0]$5\q 71g A)

S

314714

71359 ^{A 1 S}

4471g 233 so24 q 2 +s+

i q 3 \ (3.79 s . 2 1 ppb vs. 3.45 s . 1 5 ppb) ,234 3) (2.83 20.17 ppb vs. 2.99 kO.08 ppb), 3

34

³⁾ (2.56 k0.08 ppb vs. 2.55 H.08 ppb)

ef 8 4 9

3 \ ~ ] 7 \ L+E+LF~TJ

g$o

uj, NOzq

-13

% S k 1 4 3 1 (0.325 k0.068 @ / ~ ' v s . 0.300 H.062 %/m3), 2

34

³⁾ (0.341 f 0.206 p g / d vs. 0.332k 0.144 %/m3), 334 3) (2.971 H.078 d m 3 vs. 2.%8 k0.085 Ff

iJ 4

^+-A\

4-A1

% 3 q % q .

5.

5 7 3 4

323 7 ) s A]

SX]

471 S+ 7 1 3 9

~ 1 ~ 3 H 4 7 1

3-4-

1

q 314

~j 0.499 k0.072 d m 3 VS.

0.463 k0.133 K/m3, 2 4 3\ 0.598+

0.112 VS. 0.603 k0.082 d m 3 , 3

q

³⁾ 2.284 20.077 @Im3 VS. 2.353 0.115 4 m 3 2 z

44

^-$A\$

q%Q P

LFEF45Ir;f.

ol%4 3i+ollAj +$ 41,

%'bFo14- ++g

871 7 ] P 's,F~J7]g

7 f l ~ % \ q 9s

A]

~ 3 4 4

⁷¹

4 7]$q

-1j+o] $

%$ A&y$ A]Sii]#7]4

A l s q

Ad%ol]Aj @40' ;" 3\017\

92 301 LF+-+ 71Eq ~1sZ;Td

&?g ~#+Jg\q

71359 A]==

214 g$

^{7\$4 61}

9 q ~

q .

1 t l L F S

9 7 o l l A j 5 f 1

4%

r q

gT!qAj qzq%2.~-iz, ^3%

r

g 3 6 1 1 ~ j q

lid 977)

9 q o i

3 2qq.

~1

1991; 3: 21-31

%!%,

499, 483,

ol"?,

P

%Ad,

^{OIAd$, 01%;;'.}

Wq# x-

ray fluorescence+ high volume air samplers o J # 3

2/33

d-71

5

9 35

~ l i z

9 ~ . g q g g q

AJ

q3)

^X] 22004,14(1): 71-76

%hi%, 9%#, 0193. q^,F%' P4 714

g - A J @ 9 $ oJ#$ 571%

pQ -+71#;~I]

g'E3q 83 9 7 . 3;;'+qq."Jqq

1994;4(2):

127-136

6159.

³¹⁷¹

kg s&

^{3 0 1}

4 9 4 7194 3% 9+. ?3 +3 q

%Liz

q714qq

1993; 2(3): 207- 216

%pgf, kg*, x."oFq

.

q",Fq 34

714 3 A J q q g

ol#$

~ $ 9

E+%% 3 7 1 5 3% +7]

4-414 PWlii!. 3393qAJ' q3)

^X] 2002; 12(3): 21 1-220

EgAd, %W5,

o ] % 3 . zjlz

" d l A j 371%

9

kg715

oil 95E

f?

sgq 93

P

A ) .

$%%L*$jqq

1999; 5(2):

27-37

Eqx), Y'd-3.

571% -$71-@1] 1) E

$8611 33 q3EG 714 Zj-AdQ84 9+.

^@

'$3 WAJqqz]

1997; 7(1): 3 0

45

@+dg,

^%%71.

H8%414 olE4 241.

H e q , 2004

3 3 7 . q719g34Alg%. @ 4 9

X A ] 41722, 2003

Baldauf RW. Lane DD, Marob GA, Wiener RW. Performance evaluation of the portable MiniVOL particulate matter sampler. Atmospheric Environment 2001; 6087-6091

Chenie JW. The beginning of the science underpinning occupational hygiene.

Ann Occup Hyg 2003; 47(3): 179- 185 Harper M, b e l l CT. Diffusive samphg;

A review. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 1987;

48(3): 214218

Lippmann M. Sampling aerosols by filtmtion, in air sampling instruments, 7th, ed, Hering SV, Cincinnati, OH:

American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists;

1989, pp. 305-336

NIOSH. Manual of Analytical Methods.

3rd ed, Cincinnati: NIOSH; 1994 OSHA. Sampling and Analytical Method

Manual. OSHA, 1998

Sherwood RJ, Greenhalgh DMS. A personal air sampler. Ann Occup Hyg 1960; 2: 127-132