JOURNAL BROWSE
Search
Advanced SearchSearch Tips
Characteristics of Size Distribution and Fugitive Emissions of Particulate Matter in Foundries
facebook(new window)  Pirnt(new window) E-mail(new window) Excel Download
 Title & Authors
Characteristics of Size Distribution and Fugitive Emissions of Particulate Matter in Foundries
Park, Jeong-Ho; Jang, Min-Jae; Kim, Hyoung-Kab;
  PDF(new window)
 Abstract
Objectives: This study was performed to measure and evaluate the concentration, size distribution and fugitive emission of particulate matter from process operations at foundries. Methods: Particle matter was collected from three foundries, and samples were also collected from a background site for calculating the fugitive emission concentration of the foundries. For the collection of the samples, a Nanosampler cascade impactor was used. Results: The concentration of TSP in the samples collected from the three foundries was , was and was . The mass size distribution was bimodal or monomodal with maximum peak at two stage(size ). The mass median aerodynamic diameter(MMAD) was . The fugitive emission concentration of TSP varies in the range of 0.65 to , which exceeds the emission standard of fugitive dust(). Conclusions: Particle concentration and size is an important industrial hygiene factor to protect foundry workers. Furthermore, the presence of high emission of particulate pollutants has a significant negative impact on the ambient air of the study area. Therefore, it is important to improve both the process and prevention facility in oder to reduce particulate pollutants in foundries.
 Keywords
cascade impactor;foundry;fugitive dust;particulate matter;size distribution;
 Language
Korean
 Cited by
 References
1.
Scholz RC, Slavin TJ. Control of silica exposure in foundries. American Foundry Society; 2007. p. 1-3

2.
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists(ACGIH). 2007 TLVs and BEIs based on the documentation of the threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological exposure indices. Cincinnati, ACGIH, 2007

3.
Andersson L, Bryngelsson IL, Ohlson CG, Nayström P, Lilja BG et al.. Quartz and Dust Exposure in Swedish Iron Foundries, Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2009;6:9-18 crossref(new window)

4.
Bae HJ, Nam MR, Lee SM, Jung YJ, Shon BH et al. Exposure Assessments of Chemical Risk Factors to Airborne Contaminants in Foundry Process. Journal of Environmental Science International 2015;24(5): 699-708 crossref(new window)

5.
Delfino RJ, Sioutas C, Malik S. Potential Role of Ultrafine particles in Associations between Airborne Particle Mass and Cardiovascular Health, Environ Health Perspect 2005;113(8):934-946 crossref(new window)

6.
Donaldson K, Li XY, MacNee W. Ultrafine(nanometer) particle mediated lung injury. J Aerosol Sci 1998; 29(5/6):553-560 crossref(new window)

7.
Douglas EE, William AH, Thomas JS, Thomas MP. Ultrafine and Respirable Particles in an Automotive Grey Iron Foundry. Ann Occup Hyg 2008;52(1):9-21

8.
Eryu K, Seto T, Mizukami Y, Nagura M, Furuuchi M et al. Design of inertial filter for classification of $PM_{0.1}$. Earozory Kenkyu 2009;24:24-29

9.
Furuuchi M, Eryu K, Nagura M, Hata M, Kato T et al. Development and performance evaluation of air sampler with inertial filter for Nanoparticle sampling. Aerosol and Air Quality Research 2010;10:185-192 crossref(new window)

10.
Kim TH, Ha HC, Jeong CH, Seo JY, Piao CX et al. The Status of Maintenance of Exhaust Fans and Bag filters in Melting Processes in a foundry industrial complex. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2007;17(3): 212-223

11.
Korea Occupation Safety & Health Agency(KOSHA), Study of Reformation about Working condition Foundry Postprocess, Report, 2000-69-318; 2000. p.1

12.
Lee KH, Yang HJ, Hu CG. Size distribution of ambient aerosol measured at a coastal site in Jeju island, Journal of the Environmental Sciences 2003;12(10): 1043-1054 crossref(new window)

13.
Liu HH, Yang HH, Chou CD, Lin MH, Chen HK. Risk assessment of gaseous/particulate phase PAH exposure in foundry industry. Journal of Hazardous Materials 2010;181:105-111 crossref(new window)

14.
Ministry of Environment(MoE). PRTR report of chemical substance emissions. 2015. p.26

15.
Ministry of Environment(MoE). Standard methods for the Measurements of air pollution. ES01302. 2016

16.
O'Shaughnessy PT, Raabe OG. A Comparison of Cascade Impactor Data Reduction Methods. Aerosol Sci Technol 2003;37:187-200 crossref(new window)

17.
Otani Y, Eryu K, Furuuchi M, Tajima N, Tekasakul P. Inertial classification of Nanoparticles with fibrous filters. Aerosol and Air Quality Research 2007;7: 343-352 crossref(new window)

18.
Park JH, Jang MJ, Kim HG. Mass Size Distribution of Atmospheric Aerosol Particles with Nanosampler Cascade Impactor in Jinju City. Journal of Environmental Science International 2015:24(5): 679-687 crossref(new window)

19.
Park YS, Roh YM, Kim HW, Han JG, Ahn YS et al. A Study of Respirable Dust Concentrations and Quartz Contents in Foundry. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2003;13(1):90-97

20.
Phee YG, Roh YM, Lee KM, Kim HA, Kim YW et al. Analysis of Quartz Content and Particle Size Distribution of Airborne Dust from Selected Foundry Operations. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 1997;7(2):196-208

21.
Sathe AJ, Desai VGM, Chate VR, Hosamani S. Air Pollution Monitoring & Control at Foundry Clusters in Belgaum-A Case Study. Civil and Environmental Research 2015:7(5):63-69

22.
Suh JM, Bin W, Jang SH, Park JH, Choi KC. Characteristics of Size-segregated Mass Concentrations of Indoor Aerosol Particles in University Buildings. J Korean Soc Occup Environ Hyg 2014;24(4):453-461 crossref(new window)

23.
US Environmental Protection Agency(US EPA). Compilation of Air Pollutant Emission Factors. AP-42 5th ed. 1995

24.
Whitby KT. The physical characteristics of sulfur aerosols. Atmos Environ 1978;12:135-159 crossref(new window)

25.
Willeke K, Whitby KT. Atmospheric Aerosols: Size Distribution Interpretation. J Air Poll Cont Assoc 1975;25:529-534 crossref(new window)