title: Efficacy of surface sampling methods for different types of beryllium compounds.
abstract: The objective of the research work was to evaluate the efficiency of three different sampling methods (Ghost Wipe™, micro-vacuum, and ChemTest®) in the recovery of Be dust by assessing: (1) four Be compounds (beryllium acetate, beryllium chloride, beryllium oxide and beryllium aluminium), (2) three different surfaces (polystyrene, glass and aluminium) and (3) inter-operator variation. The three sampling methods were also tested on site in a laboratory of a dental school for validation purposes. The Ghost Wipe™ method showed recovery ranging from 43.3% to 85.8% for all four Be compounds and for all three quantities of Be spiked on Petri dishes, while recovery with the micro-vacuum method ranged from 0.1% to 12.4%. On polystyrene dishes with 0.4 µg Be, the recovery ranged from 48.3% to 81.7%, with an average recovery of 59.4% for Operator 1 and 68.4% for Operator 2. The ChemTest® wipe method with beryllium acetate, beryllium chloride, and AlBeMet® showed analogous results that are in line with the manufacturer's manual, but collection of beryllium oxide was negative. In the dental laboratory, Ghost Wipe™ samplings showed better recovery than the micro-vacuum method. The ratios between the recovered quantities of Be in each location where the Ghost Wipe™ was tested differed substantially, ranging from 1.45 to 64. In the dental laboratory, a faint blue color indicating the presence of Be was observed on the ChemTest® wipes used in two locations out of six. In summary, the Ghost Wipe™ method was more efficient than micro-vacuuming in collecting the Be dust from smooth, non-porous surfaces such as Petri dishes by a factor of approximately 18. The results obtained on site in a dental laboratory also showed better recovery with Ghost Wipes™. However, the ratio of Be recovered by Ghost Wipes™ versus micro-vacuuming was much lower for surfaces where a large amount of dust was present. Wet wiping is preferred over micro-vacuuming for beryllium forms, but this conclusion probably applies to the ultra-low particulate loading levels (0.4 micrograms or less) which was tested in this study.
authors.affiliation: Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Marguerite-d'Youville, 2375 Chemin de la Côte-Ste-Catherine, Montréal, Québec H3T 1A8, Canada.
authors.forename: A
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Dufresne
authors.forename: T
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Mocanu
authors.forename: S
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Viau
authors.forename: G
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Perrault
authors.forename: C
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Dion
mesh_terms: D001608:Beryllium / Q000032:analysis*; D002623:Chemistry Techniques, Analytical / Q000379:methods*; D004391:Dust / Q000032:analysis*; D004785:Environmental Pollutants / Q000032:analysis*; D013048:Specimen Handling / Q000379:methods*; D013499:Surface Properties; D014618:Vacuum
chemical_list: D004391:Dust; D004785:Environmental Pollutants; D001608:Beryllium