Number Size Distribution, Mass Concentration, and Particle Composition of PM₁, PM_2.5, and PM₁₀in Bag Filling Areas of Carbon Black Production

Abstract

Number size characteristics and PM10 mass concentrations of particles emitted during the packaging of various kinds of carbon blacks were measured continuously in the bag filling areas of three carbon black plants and concurrently at ambient comparison sites. PM10, PM2.5, and PM1 dust fractions were also determined in the bag filling areas. The filter samples were then analyzed for elemental and organic carbon. Comparisons of the measured number size distributions and mass concentrations during bag filling activities with those measured parallel at the ambient site and with those determined during nonworking periods in the work area enabled the characterization of emitted particles. PM10 mass concentrations were consistently elevated (up to a factor of 20 compared to ambient concentrations) during working periods in the bag filling area. Detailed analysis revealed that the carbon black particles released by bag filling activities had a size distribution starting at approximately 400 nm aerodynamic diameter (dae) with modes around 1 microm dae and > 8 microm dae. Ultrafine particles (< 100 nm dae), detected in the bag filling areas, were most likely attributed to noncarbon black sources such as forklift and gas heater emissions.

Measurements of Nanoscale TiO2 and Al2O3 in Industrial Workplace Environments - Methodology and Results

“…The modal value of the released particle distribution was at 340 nm. The determined modal value agrees with that observed at carbon black work areas (Kuhlbusch et al, 2004;Kuhlbusch and Fissan, 2006) where increased particle number concentrations during handling of the powders showed modal values > 400 nm diameter. The released particles were in a similar size range to this study but no significant release of particles < 100 nm was detected.…”

“…Any difference between the determined background and work area concentrations can be linked to the work activity and the nanomaterial investigated (Kuhlbusch et al, 2011). Furthermore the data interpretation was conducted similar to that used in Kuhlbusch et al (2004). Therefore, besides the measurement location at the work area (WA) a second measurement location was necessary which enabled the calculation of the background particle concentration in the work area during the work activities.…”

“…Generally, data on airborne nanoparticle exposure or exposure related measurements are still not very common (Wake et al, 2002;Kuhlbusch et al, 2004;Maynard et al, 2004;Kuhlbusch and Fissan, 2006;Fujitani et al, 2008;Tsai et al, 2008;Yeganeh et al,. 2008;Brouwer et al, 2009;Liao et al, 2009;Curwin and Bertke, 2011;Lee et al, 2011;Ling et al, 2011;Zang et al, 2011, Dylla andHassan, 2012;Koivisto et al, 2012a, b) and do not always clearly differentiate ambient from engineered particles.…”

Health hazard evaluation report: HETA #2005-0291-3025, University of Dayton Research Institute, Dayton, Ohio.

“…In a study of aerosol exposures while bagging carbon black, a researcher found that peaks in number concentration measurements were associated with emissions from fork lift trucks and gas burners in the vicinity, rather than the process under investigation. 30 Furthermore, in an engine machining facility, direct gas-fired heating systems dominated the nanoparticle number concentrations observed in the workplace compared to process-related emissions. 31 Although this issue is not unique to particle number concentration measurements, orders of magnitude difference can exist in aerosol number concentrations, depending on concomitant sources of particle emissions.…”

Conceptual model for assessment of inhalation exposure to manufactured nanoparticles

“…The authors concluded that dispersion into the air did not result in much dissociation of the agglomerates present in the bulk powder. Results from workplace measurements suggest that the bimodal size distributions obtained by dustiness tests are representative for workplace conditions (Kuhlbusch et al, 2004;Kuhlbusch and Fissan, 2006;Fujitani et al, 2008;Old and Methner, 2008;Yeganeh et al, 2008;Peters et al, 2009). ART assigns an intrinsic substance emission potential for powders to one of the six classes; that is, solid objects, firm granules or flakes, granules or flakes, coarse dust, fine dust, and extremely dusty product with associated scores (Fransman et al, 2009).…”