Skip Navigation
C. BROCHOT1,2,3,*, N. MICHIELSEN1, S. CHAZELET2 and D. THOMAS3
1 Laboratoire de Physique et Métrologie des Aérosols, Institut de Radioprotection et de Sûreté Nucléaire/Service d’Etudes et de Recherches en Aérodispersion de polluants et en Confinement BP 68, 91192 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France
2 Laboratoire Procédé et épuration des polluants, Institut National de Recherche et de Sécurité Rue du Morvan CS 60027, 54519 Vandœuvre-lès-Nancy, France
3 Laboratoire Réactions et Génie des Procédés, University of Nancy BP 20451, 54001 Nancy, France ? *Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: clothilde.brochot{at}irsn.fr Received April 5, 2012. Revision received April 24, 2012. Accepted March 23, 2012. The use of nanoparticles in industry has increased spectacularly over the past few years. Additionally, nanoscale particles seem to be the cause of new professional exposure situations. Due to their size, these particles may build up within the respiratory tract and may even reach the nervous system via the nasal passages; for this reason, it is generally recommended to wear respiratory protective devices (RPDs) in situations where collective protection is impossible to implement or inadequate. Here, we present the test bench ETNA designed to study the efficiency of RPDs in the presence of nanoparticles. The results of the efficiency measurement of two RPDs for two positions (sealed and unsealed) on a Sheffield head, for two inhalation configurations (constant flow and cyclic flow), and for two different particle size distributions of NaCl aerosol (one centered on 13nm and the other on 59nm) are presented below. The measurements indicate that when the leaks are negligible at the interface mask/head, the efficiency of RPD is greater for nanoparticles. For major leaks, the device’s protection factor changes independently of the size of the particles. Furthermore, no trends with respect to the effect of the respiration type (constant-flow and cyclic-flow tests) have been shown on the device’s protection factor.
Keywords: © The Author 2012. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene SocietyThis Article
Ann Occup Hyg (2012) 56 (5): 595-605. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mes032 Current Issue
Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.
View the original article here
0 comments:
Post a Comment