Biomedical subjects

W A Heitbrink

Publications and source records attributed to W A Heitbrink.

5 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed1992

An approach to evaluating and correcting aerodynamic particle sizer measurements for phantom particle count creation.

An aerodynamic particle sizer (APS) can be used to make real-time measurements of the aerodynamic particle size distribution over the range of 0.5 to 32 microns. This instrument is very useful in conducting health-related aerosol measurements involving aerosol generation, respirator efficiency, and particulate sampling efficiency. One of the two signal processors within the APS can create spurious or phantom particle counts that can significantly affect relative measurements and calculated mass distributions. In the APS, particle size measurement is based upon a particle's transit time between two laser beams that are perpendicular to an accelerating airflow. The signal processors measure each particle's transit from the time between the two pulses of scattered light that are generated as the particle passes through the two laser beams. When only a single pulse from a particle is detected, another pulse can cause the recording of a randomly sized phantom particle. The small particle processor (SPP), which measures particle transit from the times in digital increments of 4 nanoseconds, can create phantom particles; the large particle processor (LPP), which measures particle transit times in digital increments of 66.67 nanoseconds, is designed to prevent the creation of phantom particles. These two processors overlap in the range of 5.2 to 15.4 microns.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Aerosols↗

PubMed1992

An investigation of dust generation by free falling powders.

To identify the dust generation processes, aluminum oxide powder was dropped as a free falling slug in a test chamber. The effect of the slug's mass, diameter, and drop height upon the aerosol concentration and size distribution was measured with an aerodynamic particle sizer. To differentiate between aerosol generated during the free fall and at the end of the fall, the slug was dropped either onto a flat surface or into a container of water that suppressed dust generation associated with the impact at the end of the fall. Aerosol generation occurred during the slug's free fall as well as at the end of the fall. The falling solid induced an airflow that followed the falling solid to the end of the fall. This induced airflow contained the aerosol generated during the free fall. At the end of the free fall, the induced airflow, combined with air jets created on impact, dispersed the aerosol throughout the test chamber. Additional measurements were made by using "neutral buoyancy" helium-filled bubbles to visualize the airflow in the test chamber. The airflow and ensuing turbulence were sufficient to keep large, inspirable particles suspended throughout the test chamber for periods greater than 10 min. During experimental work, the effect of drop height, mass, and slug diameter upon aerosol generation by a single slug of powder was studied. The results indicated that the manner in which a powder is handled may be as important as material dustiness as measured by a dustiness tester. Aerosol generation can be reduced by minimizing the contact between the falling powder and the air.

Aerosols↗

PubMed1990

Factors affecting the Heubach and MRI dustiness tests.

The effect of test parameters upon material dustiness measured by the Heubach dust measurement appliance and the MRI dustiness tester was studied. The users of these tests can alter test parameters such as flow rate, sampling time, mass of material tested, bulk density, and vibrator setting. The effect of these parameters upon the aerosol produced in the dustiness tester was experimentally studied. All of the parameters affected in a complicated manner, the amount of dust and the size distribution of the dust generated during these tests. Therefore, dustiness test results should not be adjusted for variations in test parameters. The users of dustiness tests need to carefully control dustiness test parameters in order to have reproducible dustiness tests.

Aerosols↗

PubMed1990

The application of dustiness tests to the prediction of worker dust exposure.

Laboratory bench tests, known as dustiness tests, have been used to evaluate and compare the potential of various powders to cause occupational dust exposure. Dustiness tests are used to develop products with reduced dust emissions. The correlation between dustiness test results and dust exposures was evaluated at two bag dumping and bag filling operations. At one bag dumping and one bag filling operation, there was evidence of a relationship between dustiness test results and dust exposures. In one case, regression analysis showed that dust exposures could be predicted to within nearly one order of magnitude. The variability in this prediction was caused by the inherent variability in the occupational dust exposures. In the other case, there was evidence of a correlation after the data had been adjusted for the effect of varying drop height. At the remaining two operations, no correlation between dust exposures and dustiness test results were observed. These results indicate that the relevance of dustiness tests to occupational dust exposure needs to be evaluated at each site. Because a better option does not exist, manufacturers should continue to use empirical dustiness tests to develop better products in the laboratory. The conclusions reached in the laboratory need to be validated by dust exposure measurements in the field, however.

Air Pollutants, Occupational↗

PubMed1979

A modified impinger for personal sampling.

The performance of a modified impinger is described. Laboratory and limited field studies found that the modification made the device relatively spill-proof. In addition, the collection efficiency of the spill-proof impinger was compared to the standard midget impinger. For particles larger than 0.8 micrometer equivalent aerodynamic diameter, the impaction efficiencies of the two devices were found to be identical. However, the capture efficiencies of the two devices were not always found to be equivalent. In three tests, the modified impinger collected proportionately more material than the midget impinger. In three other tests, the capture efficiencies of the two devices were found to be equivalent.

Air Pollutants↗