Employee’s exposure to methyl n-amyl ketone

Occupational Exposure to Methyl-n-amyl-ketone
Name of the Student
Professor’s Name
Occupational Exposure to Methyl-n-amyl-ketone
Background
Different types of occupational health hazards impose significant challenges across employers, employees, and industrial hygienists. Industrial hygienists should always try to ensure the safety and quality of health of an employee under different adverse situations. Such professionals should sensitize and aware both the concerned stakeholders (employees and employer) regarding the likely presence of an occupational hazard that is existent in a specific industrial setting or across an organization. Industrial hygienists are entrusted to assess the occupational and personal exposure level to different toxicants and chemicals. Hence, such professionals must administer appropriate sampling strategies for accurately assessing the level of exposure or risk across an individual (Ashley, 2015). Finally, industrial hygienists should compare the occupational or personal exposure levels to the different occupational safety standards or guidelines that are framed by regulatory authorities such as OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Act), NIOSH (National Institutes of Occupational Safety and Health), and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial and Hygienists (ACGIH). However, such organizations have set individual standards for defining the limits of occupational and personal exposure. The present report reflects the occupational and personal exposure level of two employee samples to methyl-n-amyl-ketone.

Sampling Strategy and Assessment of Exposure Levels
The pre-sampling and post-sampling pump calibrations using a primary standard showed a flow rate of 0.05 l/min. Two personal samples (Sample 1 and Sample 2) were collected for 430 minutes and 440 minutes respectively. The pre-sampling and post-sampling pump calibrations reflect that the average flow rate was 0.05 l/min ([0.05 l/min +0.05 l/min]/2).
Hence, the volumes of each of the samples that was collected are calculated as:
Sample volume collected = Minutes of exposure * average flow rate
Volume Sample 1: 430 minutes * 0.05 l/minutes = 21.5 liters
Volume Sample 2: 440 minutes * 0.05 l/minutes = 22 liters
The report further reflected that the amount of Methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 1 for the front and back sections were 5000ug and 200ug respectively. Likewise, the amount of Methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 2 for the front and back sections were 4000ug and 50ug respectively. Neither the front sections nor back sections of the field blank supplied contain detectable traces of methyl-n-amyl-ketone. Hence, the amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in field blank was zero.
The volume of the personal samples (sample 1 and sample 2) in ug/l and mg/m3
For Sample 1
The total amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 1= {concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the front section of sample 1+ concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the back section of sample 1} – { concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the front section of field blank + concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the back section of field blank}
Or, the total amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 1= {5000+200} – {0+0}
Or, the total amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 1= {5200} – {0}
Or, the total amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 1= 5200ug
Hence, the amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in ug/l in sample 1= 5200/21.5= 241.86 ug/l
Therefore, the amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in mg/m3 in sample 1 is 241.86 mg/m3 [Since, 1 ug/l = 1 mg/m3]
For Sample 2
The total amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 2= {concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the front section of sample 2+ concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the back section of sample 2} – { concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the front section of field blank + concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the back section of field blank}
Or, the total amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 2= {4000+ 50} – {0+0}
Or, the total amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 2= {4050} – {0}
Or, the total amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 2= 4050ug
Hence, the amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in ug/l in sample 2= 4050/22 = 184.09 ug/l
Therefore, the amount of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in mg/m3 in sample 2 is 184.09 mg/m3 [Since, 1 ug/l = 1 mg/m3]
The concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in the personal samples (sample 1 and sample 2) in ppm (parts per million)
Concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in Sample 1 in ppm= {[methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 1 in mg/m3] * [ideal gas constant]}/ {molecular weight of methyl-n-amyl-ketone}
Or, the concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in Sample 1 in ppm = {241.86 * 24.45]/114.2 = 51.78 ppm.
Concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in Sample 2 in ppm= {[methyl-n-amyl-ketone in sample 2 in mg/m3] * [ideal gas constant]}/ {molecular weight of methyl-n-amyl-ketone}
Or, the concentration of methyl-n-amyl-ketone in Sample 2 in ppm = {184.09 * 24.45]/114.2 = 39.41 ppm.
Discussion and Conclusion
Since the OSHA reference for 8-hour TWA PEL for methyl-n-amyl-ketone is 100 ppm; hence, the results for both the samples were far below the OSHA reference for 8-hour TWA PEL for methyl-n-amyl-ketone (51.78 ppm and 39.41 ppm versus 100 ppm). On the contrary, the ACGIH TLV for methyl-n-amyl-ketone is 50 ppm. Hence, the exposure level to methyl-n-amyl-ketone for sample 1 was marginally more than the ACGIH TLV for methyl-n-amyl-ketone (51.78 ppm versus 50 ppm). However, the exposure level to methyl-n-amyl-ketone for sample 2 was also less than the ACGIH TLV for methyl-n-amyl-ketone (39.41 ppm versus 50 ppm). The sampling strategy was based on Gas Chromatographic analysis which is a standardized measure for estimating volatile gases and vapors (Ashley, 2015).
Recommendations
The present analysis reflected that sample 1 is predisposed to the risk of eye and skin irritation as per the TLV standards of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial and Hygienists for methyl-n-amyl-ketone. Such personal exposure limits to methyl-n-amyl-ketone is not legally enforceable by OSHA. However, the organization should arrange for protective suits and protective glasses for Sample 1.
References
Ashley, K. (2015). Analytical performance issues: Harmonization of NIOSH sampling and analytical methods with related international voluntary consensus standards. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 12(7), D107–D115.
Coffey, C., LeBouf, R., Lee, L., Slaven, J., & Martin, S. (2012). Effect of calibration and environmental condition on the performance of direct-reading organic vapor monitors. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 9(11), 670-680.