In the United States, total carbon (TC) is used as a surrogate for determining diesel particulate matter (DPM) compliance exposures in underground metal/nonmetal mines. Since TC can be affected by interferences and elemental carbon (EC) is not, one method used to estimate the TC concentration is to multiply the EC concentration from the personal sample by a conversion factor to avoid the influence of potential interferences. Since there is no accepted single conversion factor for all metal/nonmetal mines, one is determined every time an exposure sample is taken by collecting an area sample that represents the TC/EC ratio in the miner's breathing zone and is away from potential interferences. As an alternative to this procedure, this article investigates the relationship between TC and EC from DPM samples to determine if a single conversion factor can be used for all metal/nonmetal mines. In addition, this article also investigates how well EC represents DPM concentrations in Australian coal mines since the recommended exposure limit for DPM in Australia is an EC value. When TC was predicted from EC values using a single conversion factor of 1.27 in 14 US metal/nonmetal mines, 95% of the predicted values were within 18% of the measured value, even at the permissible exposure limit (PEL) concentration of 160 μg/m3 TC. A strong correlation between TC and EC was also found in nine underground coal mines in Australia.
The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) has promulgated rules to limit the exposure of underground metal/nonmetal miners to diesel particulate matter (DPM). (
In 2002, MSHA investigated the relationship among EC, TC, and DPM in underground metal/nonmetal mines. The investigation centered on comparing EC to TC instead of EC directly to DPM mass for two reasons: the complications of measuring DPM mass in underground mines and the desire to convert the already TC-based exposure limits to an EC value. There was a correlation between EC and TC for concentrations around the interim limit of 400
In 2007, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) built on the MSHA findings by publishing data from four underground metal/nonmetal mines and an isolated zone (section in a mine closed off to perform testing) on the relationship between EC and TC(
There were limited data at the concentrations near the final limit, and additional data at these concentrations would provide a more reliable curve to evaluate the trend. As mines decrease their concentrations, these data may be obtained.
More than four mines would be a better representation of the overall metal/nonmetal underground mining industry.
There was some information on control technologies from an isolated zone study, but there were no data on the effects of many control technologies, such as diesel particulate filters (DPFs), operating under actual mining conditions.
Notes used to identify and avoid potential interferences could be more precise and be improved for future studies.
After evaluating these findings, MSHA decided to determine DPM exposures in two ways by the following procedure. First, a personal sample is collected and analyzed for EC and TC. Second, if the TC concentration of this sample is above the PEL, the EC is converted to TC using a conversion factor to avoid the influence of potential interferences. (
The problem with this method is that in addition to the personal sample, an area sample must be collected and that it can be difficult to ensure that the sample used to determine the conversion factor is not affected by any interferences. Using a single conversion factor could reduce the number of samples taken and eliminate the potential difficult step of collecting a sample in an area that is not only uninfluenced by interferences but is also representative of the air in the miner's breathing zone. A single conversion factor would also help a mine to determine if personal samples are in compliance without trying to replicate the MSHA sampling protocol.
In this article, researchers evaluate some new data from several mine surveys to determine a single EC to TC conversion method. These current data have several advantages over previous samples collected. They represent more mines, represent many different types of control technologies, do a better job at blank correction, and, most importantly, include more samples near or below the final PEL.
In addition to the relationship between EC and TC in metal/nonmetal mines, the correlation between TC and EC is also of interest in coal mines for some countries. The United States does not measure DPM exposures via NIOSH Method 5040 in coal mines due to the potential interference to TC from coal dust, but instead regulates the emissions from the engine. (
During the past several years, NIOSH collected field samples in many areas of 14 mines. Both TC and EC samples were collected using the standard sampling train described in previous publications, (
The samples were not taken in the vicinity of oil mist, ammonium nitrate/fuel oil (ANFO), or cigarette smoke.
As much as possible, the samples were not collected downstream of oil mist.
A dynamic blank was used to correct for sampling artifacts.
It was observed that the dynamic blank in SKC DPM cassettes can be contaminated. Therefore, if the dynamic blank was out of the normal range determined in previous studies, the sample was not used.(
At least 3
Samples were collected for at least 200 min.
This data set has some benefits over the previous data used to evaluate the TC and EC relationship, as follows:(
Fourteen mines instead of four provide better representation of the mining community and of the types of control technologies being used.
More data points are available.
More care was taken to record and avoid potential interferences.
More data near the final limit are present. Twenty-five percent of the 2007 data were at or below 160
More control technologies are represented:
Diesel particulate filters Flow-through filters Biodiesel (35-70%) Emission-based maintenance Newer engines
There is a better understanding of the dynamic blank correction. (
Two different methods for estimating TC concentrations from EC were evaluated. The first method consisted of using a regression model to predict TC from EC. A linear regression analysis was performed on the data using SPSS software Version 21 (IBM Corporation, Armonk, NY). However, the data failed to meet the normality and constant variance assumptions. One method commonly used to overcome these assumptions is to apply a weighted least squares regression. (
The second method used to convert EC values to TC was to determine a single TC/EC conversion factor for all mines. This analysis was performed in two ways. The average TC/EC ratio was first calculated from all the data to establish an overall conversion factor. Then, each observed value of EC was multiplied by the conversion factor to compute an estimate of TC as demonstrated in the equation below:
To evaluate the accuracy of the estimate, the % bias was determined using the following equation:
Since the data were non-normal, instead of determining 95% confidence or prediction intervals, the value where 95% of the % biases (absolute values) were below was determined. The approach was based on the premise that the size of the sample (222 observations) was large enough for the distribution of values in the sample to provide a reasonable approximation of the distribution of the values in the population. The main shortcoming with this method is that the same data were used to both establish and validate the model. Therefore, a method sometimes employed to validate linear regression models was adapted. (
It is difficult to determine the relationship between TC and EC in coal mines since even with an impactor certain concentrations of coal dust may cause an interference to TC. (
During the past several years, DPM samples have been collected in nine coal mines in Australia. The SKC impactor apparatus described in previous publications(
Because the data from the coal mines also failed the tests for normality and constant variance, the same weighted regression analysis performed on the data for the metal/nonmetal mines was applied to the data from the coal mines.
As with the metal/nonmetal data, an universal conversion factor model was applied to the data. It was discovered in this data set that there was higher variability in the TC/EC ratios for concentrations below 50
The results of this study demonstrate that 95% of EC concentrations in DPM samples across at least 14 mines can be converted to TC concentrations within 18% of measured values via a single conversion factor. This conclusion is supported through a combination of statistical analyses. The weighted least squares regression model presented in
The universal conversion factor approach shows similar results.
The weighted regression and universal conversion factor models resulted in a similar relationship being revealed between TC and EC from DPM samples and with similar errors. The errors or biases represent the overall error in the method, including errors from the analytical method, pump, sampling, and conversion technique. The errors of both models are less than the current error for determining compliance results from the TC of the personal sample (error of 19%) or when converting EC to TC using a single area sample to determine conversion factor (error of 26%).(
Though the number of mines (14) used in this research study does not represent all mines, the number of points is substantial. The control technologies in this data set represent most of what is used currently in underground mines. (No data were collected for mines using 100% biodiesel).
For Australian coal mines, the results demonstrate that 95% of the time TC will be within about 19% of the measured value when predicted from the EC values above 50
The single conversion factor method for data with EC concentrations above 50
As mentioned earlier, only data with EC concentrations above 50
With this data set, TC, and therefore DPM, can be predicted from EC concentrations within 21.6% (95% confidence) at 100
The data set from the metal/nonmetal mines sampled for this study demonstrates a strong relationship between TC and EC in 14 underground mines, even when using several different types of control technologies. TC is able to be predicted from the EC values with an overall conversion factor within 18% of measured values 95% of the time. Using this single conversion model for at least the 14 mines sampled in this study results in less error by comparison to compliance sampling, is less complicated, and requires fewer samples. Using the model derived from these data to determine an EC value for the PEL, an EC value of 127 or 128
The data set from the coal mines in Australia also demonstrated a strong relationship between TC and EC in nine underground mines. It showed that TC, and therefore DPM, for these nine coal mines can be determined within 19% from using EC as a surrogate for at least concentrations of 50
The weighted regression of the 8-hr TWA of TC concentration vs. EC concentration of DPM samples from 14 metal/nonmetal mines.
The absolute value of the % bias of the calculated TC from the TC/EC ratio when compared to the measure TC value from 14 metal/nonmetal mines.
The weighted regression of the 8-hr TWA of TC concentration vs. EC concentration of DPM samples from nine coal mines (for data of EC above 50
The absolute value of the % bias of the calculated TC from the TC/EC ratio when compared to the measured TC value from nine Australian coal mines (for data of EC above 50
TC/EC ratios vs. EC concentrations comparing mines that do and do not use DPFs.
| Mine | Engine controls | Type | Other control technologies used | N | TC/EC | Standard deviation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A | none | limestone | cabs, ventilation | 15 | 1.24 | 0.09 |
| B | DPFs | metal | ventilation | 17 | 1.39 | 0.15 |
| C | DPF/biodiesel (70%) | metal | cabs, ventilation | 14 | 1.29 | 0.16 |
| D | Biodiesel (50%)-DPF | metal | cabs, ventilation | 8 | 1.34 | 0.16 |
| E | emission-based maintenance | limestone | cabs, ventilation | 15 | 1.24 | 0.07 |
| F | none | limestone | cabs, ventilation | 9 | 1.25 | 0.09 |
| G | none | limestone | cabs, ventilation | 9 | 1.44 | 0.1 |
| H | none | limestone | cabs, newer engines, ventilation | 11 | 1.23 | 0.07 |
| I | none | metal | cabs and ventilation | 3 | 1.22 | 0.08 |
| J | 50% biodiesel/doc | limestone | cabs and ventilation | 11 | 1.4 | 0.12 |
| K | 35% biodiesel/doc | limestone | cabs and ventilation | 6 | 1.19 | 0.03 |
| L | flow-through filters | metal | ventilation | 13 | 1.21 | 0.06 |
| M | cabs ventilation | granite | cabs and ventilation | 53 | 1.23 | 0.09 |
| N | newer engines | limestone | cabs and ventilation | 38 | 1.26 | 0.12 |
| Mine | Engine controls | Type | Other control technologies used | Whole data set | EC > 50 | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||||
| N | TC/EC | Standard deviation | N | TC/EC | Standard deviation | ||||
| CA | None | Coal, LW Punch mine | Diesel tag hoard, Electric mule at Recovery face | 6 | 1.10 | 0.05 | 4 | 1.11 | 0.06 |
| CB | None | Coal, LW mine | Diesel tag board, Electric mule at Recovery face | 10 | 1.46 | 0.18 | 7 | 1.36 | 0.07 |
| CC | None | Coal, LW Punch mine | Diesel tag board, Electric mule at Recovery face | 7 | 1.27 | 0.10 | 4 | 1.21 | 0.02 |
| CD | None | Coal, LW mine | Diesel tag board, Electric Loader at Recovery face | 16 | 1.27 | 0.08 | 10 | 1.26 | 0.07 |
| CE | Exhaust Filters | Coal, LW mine | Diesel tag board, Electric dozer at Recovery face, special vent circuit design for LW move | 30 | 1.50 | 0.34 | 15 | 1.4 | 0.17 |
| CF | None | Coal, LW mine | Diesel tag board | 12 | 1.23 | 0.05 | 12 | 1.23 | 0.05 |
| CG | None | Coal, LW mine | Diesel tag board | 25 | 1.32 | 0.14 | 21 | 1.31 | 0.13 |
| CH | None | Coal, LW mine | Diesel tag board, Electric mule at Recovery face | 9 | 1.24 | 0.15 | 9 | 1.24 | 0.15 |
| CI | None | Coal, LW mine | Electric mule at Installation face | 5 | 1.32 | 0.07 | 4 | 1.33 | 0.08 |