Environmental Health Criteria 214

More documents

Recommendations

Info

HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT environments. This process depends on the inertial properties of the particles, such as size, density and velocity, and on the physical parameters of the impactor, such as inlet-nozzle dimensions and airflow paths. Because of differences in characteristics, samplers differ in cut-off size ( d 50 ) (e.g., the particle size above which 50% or more of the particles are collected). As most impactors have very sharp cut-off characteristics, almost all particles larger than the d 50 are collected and d 50 is therefore assumed to be the size above which all particles larger than that size are collected (Nevalainen et al., 1992). No sampler collects all particles with equal efficiency, and it is therefore not surprising that different quantitative and qualitative results are obtained using different sampling devices for culturable fungi (Verhoeff et al., 1990). The choice of the collection (culture) medium also affects the kinds and levels of fungi recovered (Verhoeff et al., 1990). No single collection medium will enable the entire range of viable fungi in the air to be isolated. Media which are generally accepted for aerobiological studies include malt extract agar (MEA), V8 juice agar and dichloran 18% glycerol agar (DG18) (EC, 1993; ACGIH, 1995). MEA and V8 agar are broad spectrum media, whereas DG18 is intended to be a selective medium for xerophilic fungi, but many of the common fungal species in air can also be isolated (Verhoeff et al., 1990). Few published data are available on the validity (accuracy and precision) of the measurement of fungi in air as estimate of exposure. All commonly used cultural air samplers use short sampling periods, typically 30 seconds to several minutes (Table 32). The reproducibility of parallel duplicate samples and sequential duplicate samples is only moderate, both in terms of CFU/m 3 and in terms of species isolated (Verhoeff et al., 1990). More importantly, repeated sampling within weeks has demonstrated that variation in time within homes is much higher than the variation between homes (Verhoeff et al., 1992). This means that a single air sample has only a low predictive value for exposure over time. Furthermore, the use of cultures for quantifying fungal particle concentrations in air samples will give an underestimate of the actual particle concentrations, and may cause significant fungal contamination to be missed altogether. The culturable fungal particles may comprise only a few percent of the Page 160 of 284 Table 32. Overview of sampling techniques for airborne fungal particles a Method with examples Sampling rate and time Rem Non-viable, non-volumetric - settling surface, adhesive-coated undefined, minutes to days sem lar Non-viable, volumetric - rotating tape/slide impactors Burkard trap 10 litre/min, 7 days cut - rotating arm impactors Rotorod sampler 47 litre/min, intermittent cut - filter methods cassette filters 1-4 litre/min, hours via http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc<strong>214</strong>.htm 6/1/2007
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT high-volume filters 150-2000 litre/min, hours fro Viable, non-volumetric - settlement plates undefined, hours sem lar Viable, volumetric - multiple hole impactors Andersen 6-stage sampler 28.3 litre/min, 1-30 min cut Andersen 2-stage sampler 28.3 litre/min, 1-30 min cut Andersen 1-stage (N6) 28.3 litre/min, 1-30 min cut Surface Air System sampler 90/180 litre/min, 20 sec-6 min cut Eight-stage personal impactor 2 litre/min, 5-30 min cut Burkard portable sampler 10/20 litre/min, 1-9 min cut - centrifugal impactors Reuter Centrifugal sampler (RCS) ca. 40 litre/min, 20 sec-8 min cut Reuter Centrifugal Plus (RCS-Plus) ca. 50 litre/min, 30 sec-8 min cut Table 32. (continued) Method with examples Sampling rate and time Rem - rotating slit-to-agar impactors Mattson-Garvin air sampler 28 litre/min, 5-60 min cut - liquid impingers single-stage all glass impingers 12.5 litre/min cut three-stage impingers 20 litre/min cut a For detailed information see ACGIH (1995). total number of fungal particles (Horner et al., 1994). Thus, in order to optimize the information available from air sampling, both types of particle should be sampled. However, even using the best available method, a large number of airborne spores will not grow in culture and cannot be visually identified with available methods. At present, there is no standardized method for the sampling of airborne fungi, although the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH, 1989) and the European Commission (EC, 1993) have given recommendations. An outline for selecting a bioaerosol sampler is presented by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH, 1995). Selection criteria include sampling location, form of recovered particles (intact or dispersed), the need for size separation and the expected concentrations of the particles. 9.4.2 Settled dust for fungi Settled house dust can be sampled for viable fungi in exactly the same way as for house dust mites and their allergens (see section 9.2.2). The dust samples can be stored at room temperature but the analysis should be performed within a few days. http://www.inchem.org/documents/ehc/ehc/ehc<strong>214</strong>.htm Page 161 of 284 6/1/2007
Page 1 and 2:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT UNITED NA
Page 3 and 4:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT PREAMBLE
Page 5 and 6:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 6.6.2. Un
Page 7 and 8:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 10.6.7. B
Page 9 and 10:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT (iv) to p
Page 11 and 12:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Organizat
Page 13 and 14:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT WHO TASK
Page 15 and 16:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Dr M. You
Page 17 and 18:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Environme
Page 19 and 20:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT increase
Page 21 and 22:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT character
Page 23 and 24:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT include e
Page 25 and 26:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT http://ww
Page 27 and 28:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT the carri
Page 29 and 30:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT the ideal
Page 31 and 32:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT continuum
Page 33 and 34:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT as well a
Page 35 and 36:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT In regula
Page 37 and 38:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Results o
Page 39 and 40:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Risk miti
Page 41 and 42:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT trends of
Page 43 and 44:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Knowledge
Page 45 and 46:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT small tow
Page 47 and 48:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT * selecti
Page 49 and 50:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT provide s
Page 51 and 52:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT the water
Page 53 and 54:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Public po
Page 55 and 56:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT character
Page 57 and 58:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT PbB PbF P
Page 59 and 60:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT values in
Page 61 and 62:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT lead meas
Page 63 and 64:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Continuou
Page 65 and 66:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT logarithm
Page 67 and 68:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT events in
Page 69 and 70:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT -1.751 0.
Page 71 and 72:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT one is a
Page 73 and 74:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT house dus
Page 75 and 76:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT PM 2.5 co
Page 77 and 78:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 4.5 Non-p
Page 79 and 80:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT season, r
Page 81 and 82:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Table 15.
Page 83 and 84:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Activity
Page 85 and 86:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Similarly
Page 87 and 88:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT local con
Page 89 and 90:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Environme
Page 91 and 92:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT for tempo
Page 93 and 94:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT devices,
Page 95 and 96:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Using a d
Page 97 and 98:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT (gases an
Page 99 and 100:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Dermal ab
Page 101 and 102:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Models de
Page 103 and 104:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT partition
Page 105 and 106:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 6.6.1 Var
Page 107 and 108:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Probabili
Page 109 and 110: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The ADD i
Page 111 and 112: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 7.1 Intro
Page 113 and 114: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT suitabili
Page 115 and 116: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Carbon mo
Page 117 and 118: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Samplin I
Page 119 and 120: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Table 22.
Page 121 and 122: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT TSI Flowr
Page 123 and 124: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 2 litre/m
Page 125 and 126: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Table 24.
Page 127 and 128: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT or increa
Page 129 and 130: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Fluosilic
Page 131 and 132: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT dependent
Page 133 and 134: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT basket su
Page 135 and 136: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT reasonabl
Page 137 and 138: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT There are
Page 139 and 140: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT predesign
Page 141 and 142: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT field wou
Page 143 and 144: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT samples v
Page 145 and 146: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT dust to,
Page 147 and 148: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Choosing
Page 149 and 150: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT others sh
Page 151 and 152: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT sampling
Page 153 and 154: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT of house
Page 155 and 156: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Individua
Page 157 and 158: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT subject o
Page 159: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT same assa
Page 163 and 164: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Immunoche
Page 165 and 166: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 9.5.1 Air
Page 167 and 168: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT measureme
Page 169 and 170: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT By their
Page 171 and 172: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT possess a
Page 173 and 174: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT factors (
Page 175 and 176: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Improved
Page 177 and 178: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT limited.
Page 179 and 180: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Media Che
Page 181 and 182: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT of venipu
Page 183 and 184: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Glands at
Page 185 and 186: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT breast-fe
Page 187 and 188: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT equipment
Page 189 and 190: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT only nume
Page 191 and 192: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT procedure
Page 193 and 194: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT clearly p
Page 195 and 196: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The Shewh
Page 197 and 198: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT of statis
Page 199 and 200: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT as closel
Page 201 and 202: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT operation
Page 203 and 204: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT reports o
Page 205 and 206: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Indoor Ai
Page 207 and 208: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT (calcium,
Page 209 and 210: HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 1984; Akl
Page 211 and 212:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT chemilumi
Page 213 and 214:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT carried o
Page 215 and 216:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT beverages
Page 217 and 218:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Total 11
Page 219 and 220:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT of mean c
Page 221 and 222:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 30 µg/dl
Page 223 and 224:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT The shell
Page 225 and 226:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 12.5 Expo
Page 227 and 228:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT treatment
Page 229 and 230:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Aeration
Page 231 and 232:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT downwind
Page 233 and 234:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Governmen
Page 235 and 236:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Bercini D
Page 237 and 238:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Callahan
Page 239 and 240:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Centers f
Page 241 and 242:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Report of
Page 243 and 244:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Goldstein
Page 245 and 246:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT (1996) [E
Page 247 and 248:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Jimenez R
Page 249 and 250:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Seemayer
Page 251 and 252:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT carbon mo
Page 253 and 254:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT order sta
Page 255 and 256:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Lake, Nor
Page 257 and 258:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT effects o
Page 259 and 260:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Saraf A,
Page 261 and 262:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Silbergel
Page 263 and 264:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT retrospec
Page 265 and 266:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT UN ESCAP
Page 267 and 268:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT National
Page 269 and 270:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT Wallace L
Page 271 and 272:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT WHO (1995
Page 273 and 274:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT RÉSUMÉ
Page 275 and 276:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT le point
Page 277 and 278:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT chercher
Page 279 and 280:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT tóxica a
Page 281 and 282:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 6. Modeli
Page 283 and 284:
HUMAN EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT ambiental
show all

Environmental Health Criteria 214

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?