COPPER (dust and fume): METHOD 7029, Issue 2, dated 15 August 1994 - Page 4 of 4
EVALUATION OF METHOD: Method S186 was validated on August 29, 1975, with overall sampling and analytical precision, SˆrT = 3 0.051, over the range 0.47 to 1.8 mg/m for a 90-L sample of CuO dust [3,6] and Method S354 was validated on September 30, 1977, with overall sampling and analytical precision, SˆrT = 0.058, over the range 0.05 to 0.37 mg/m 3 for a 480-L sample of Cu fume [1,4]. Copper fume atmospheres were generated by thermal decomposition and subsequent oxidation of cupric acetate aerosol. The size of the copper fume was 0.04 to 0.14 µm by electron microscopy and the collection efficiency of the sampler for this fume was 1.00 [1,4,9]. The dust-fume separation step was evaluated with samples laden with copper fume generated from copper welding; the samples were then placed into a dust generation system and overlaid with a known deposition of copper sulfate dust. With a dust loading of about 600 µg CuSO 4 and fume concentrations of 0.13 to 0.59 mg/m 3, an average of 96.5% of the dust was removed. The analysis of the copper fume had a pooled Sr of 4.4% with an average bias of 5.3% [2]. Efficiencies of removal of Cu dust and fume were determined from samples containing only dust or only fume. Measured efficiencies were: (1) from filters containing 213 to 265 µg CuSO 4, an average of 97.8% was removed using 10 to 50 mL water; (2) filters laden with ca. 200 µg Cu/filter lost 11.5% Cu after washing with 10 mL H 2O. Because the non-equilibrium nature of the washing process does not lend itself to accurate prediction of the amount of copper fume removed by the wash water, no correction factor for the amount of fume removed was determined or employed. The elemental analysis used in the evaluation did not distinguish between copper from the fume and from the dust [2].
REFERENCES: [1] Backup Data Report for Copper Fume, S354, prepared under NIOSH Contract No. 210-76-0123, available as "Ten NIOSH Analytical Methods, Set 5," Order No. PB 287-499 from NTIS, Springfield, VA 22101. [2] Carsey, T. Development of a Sampling and Analytical Method for Copper Fume, final report, NIOSH (DPSE) (unpublished, September, 1982). [3] Documentation of the NIOSH Validation Tests, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ. (NIOSH) 77-185 (1977). [4] Ibid, V. 4, Method S354, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ. (NIOSH) 78-175 (1978). [5] NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods, 2nd ed., V. 5, P&CAM 173, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ. (NIOSH) 79-141 (1979). [6] Ibid, V. 3, Method S186, U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Publ. (NIOSH) 77-157-C (1977). [7] Winefordner, J. D., Ed. Spectrochemical Methods of Analysis , John Wiley & Sons (1971). [8] Analytical Methods for Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry, Perkin-Elmer (1976). [9] NIOSH Research Report-Development and Validation of Methods for Sampling and Analysis of Workplace Toxic Substances, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Publ. (NIOSH) 80-133 (1980).
METHOD REVISED BY: Mark Millson, NIOSH/DPSE, and R. DeLon Hull, Ph.D., NIOSH/DBBS; originally validated under NIOSH Contracts CDC-94-74-45 and 210-76-0123. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM), Fourth Edition, 8/15/94
