Comparison of active and passive sampling methods for formaldehyde in pathology/histology labs

Details

• Personal Author:
  Guffey S ; Harper M ; Kashon M ; Lee E ; Magrm R
• Description:
  Objective: The purpose of this study is to compare formaldehyde concentrations between active and passive sampling methods. Methods: One pathology and one histology lab voluntarily participated in the present study. In each lab, personal and area exposure measurements were collected using sets of active air samplers (Supelco LpDNPH tubes) and passive (diffusive) badges (ChemDisk Aldehyde Monitor 571). At the pathology lab, samples were collected in two campaigns, 15 personal and 10 area sample pairs in one and 21 personal and 4 area sample pairs in the other. At the histology lab, 13 personal and 3 area sample pairs were collected. Participants were lab personnel who handled formaldehyde solution and personnel who did not, but, were in close proximity. Samples were analyzed by the NIOSH contract laboratory according to NIOSH method 2016 for active samples and OSHA method 1007 (using the manufacturer's updated uptake rate, which is different to that cited in the OSHA method) for passive samples. Results: All active 8-hr time-weighted average (TWA) exposure measurements, which ranged from 0.004-0.25 ppm (median 0.04 ppm), showed compliance with the OSHA PEL (0.75 ppm), but not with the lower NIOSH REL (0.016 ppm), Passive TWA exposure measurements, which ranged from 0.01-1.98 ppm (median 1.19 ppm), showed > OSHA PEL. The median of concentration ratios (passive/active) was 1.19 (range: 0.27- 17.28) for all data and 1.16 (range: 0.27-6.58) after removing four outliers using Cook's distance method. The regression analysis of log-transformed data (Ho: Slope (b)=1) indicated statistically no significant difference of concentrations between active and passive samples for all data (b=0.88 with adj. R2=0.616), but a significant difference was detected for the data without outliers (b=0.88 with adj. R2=0.785). In addition, statistical differences were observed from the comparison of exposure measurements between the active and passive samples (all p-values < 0.05) both with and without outliers. Conclusions: The regression analysis test result without outliers and the comparison of means indicated that there is bias between the methods. The small sample loading on the passive sampler and/or the uptake rate used may have contributed to this bias. The higher concentrations shown by the passive badges result in a more conservative assessment of risk, but the difference between methods lead to a different conclusion with regard to legal compliance in this situation. [Description provided by NIOSH]
• Subjects:
  Environmental Exposure Formaldehyde Histology Laboratories Occupational Health Pathology Safety
• Keywords:
  Air Samplers Exposure Levels Formaldehydes Laboratory Testing Measurement Equipment Sampling Sampling Methods
• Publisher:
  American Industrial Hygiene Association
• Document Type:
  Text
• Genre:
  Abstract or Summary
• Place as Subject:
  Maryland ; OSHA Region 3 ; West Virginia
• CIO:
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)
• Division:
  HELD - Health Effects Laboratory Division
• Topic:
  Workplace Safety & Health
• Location:
  North America
• Pages in Document:
  22
• NIOSHTIC Number:
  nn:20048250
• Citation:
  AIHce 2016: American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition Pathways to Progress, May 21-26, 2016, Baltimore, Maryland. Falls Church, VA: American Industrial Hygiene Association, 2016 May; :22
• CAS Registry Number:
  Formaldehyde (CAS RN 50-00-0)
• Federal Fiscal Year:
  2016
• NORA Priority Area:
  Manufacturing
• Peer Reviewed:
  False
• Source Full Name:
  AIHce 2016: American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition Pathways to Progress, May 21-26, 2016, Baltimore, Maryland
• Collection(s):
  National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
• Main Document Checksum:
  urn:sha-512:6bee8f01eb31242c5797092a1f89a86cae45391211f89ce72a33eb43a10497f347b92aaf2cd296899ecae1bec6174e8be5636fbc7b4d22b0214dc130480ed28a
• Download URL:
  https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/203055/cdc_203055_DS1.pdf
• File Type:
  [PDF - 1.49 MB ]