Measuring identification methods and non-measuring identification methods can be used to determine and assess inhalation exposure. Measuring identification methods are assessed consistently based on a uniform procedure. By contrast, with a few exceptions, there are no similar criteria for assessing non-measuring identification methods. This publication aims to provide approaches to close the gap. For this purpose, we looked in more detail at standardised work procedures, assistance from third parties, the transfer of results of workplace measurements to other workplaces, control banding tools, and exposure models. For each of these non-measuring identification methods, we described quality criteria to help the user select and apply a method. We also present personal requirements for the proper application of these non-measuring identification methods.

The European standard EN 689 has been fundamentally revised in recent years. At the beginning of 2020 it has been published.This standard describes a strategy for testing the compliance of the results of workplace measurements with occupational exposure limit values (OELVs). It is focussed on occupational safety and health (OSH) where it is applicable to the risk assessment of inhalation exposure. For the assessment of exposure data in the framework of REACH (Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals) and the Biocidal Products Regulation, the EN 689 is not yet established. Because it is restricted to testing the compliance with occupational exposure limits, it is not possible to establish a finding "protective measures adequate" according to the Technical Rule for Hazardous Substances (TRGS) 402. The efficacy of protective measures is not considered in the framework of this standard.The following article critically describes the essential contents of the revised version of this standard.The new version of this standard is associated with a significant increase of measurement and testing effort to proof compliance with occupational exposure limit values.

Measurement procedures used for workplace measurements of chemical agents need to fulfill certain quality criteria. According to the European standard EN 482 the expanded uncertainty is the crucial factor in deciding whether a measurement procedure can be used for workplace measurements. For the purpose of this study, one personal sampler and four direct-reading instruments (DRIs) commonly used for workplace measurements of mercury were tested. In a first step, a measurement procedure consisting of a personal air sampler with adsoQUICK as sorbent material and a DMA-80 mercury-measuring device using atomic absorption spectrometry (AAS) was validated according to EN 482.The expanded uncertainty of this analytical method was found to be below 30%, deeming it suitable for workplace measurements of mercury vapor according to EN 482. In a second step a round robin test including four DRIs (three different manufacturers and one replicate) was performed to determine the comparability of these devices to the validated analytical method as well as among themselves.Three of the four DRIs yielded average values between 96 and 106% when compared to the personal air sampler results, whereas the forth yielded 122%.The round robin test demonstrated a good comparability of the DRIs with each other and with the personal air sampler.

Die auch als 3D-Druck bezeichnete additive Fertigung findet zunehmend Verbreitung bei der Herstellung von Prototypen und Werkzeugen sowie industriellen Bauteilen. Daher hat die Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA) die Exposition von Beschäftigten gegenüber den eingesetzten Stoffen und den z. B. als Zersetzungsprodukte freigesetzten flüchtigen organischen Verbindungen (Volatile Organic Compounds, VOC) näher untersucht [1]. Die Untersuchungen fokussierten sich auf die additive Fertigung mittels Pulverbettverfahren und erfolgten in zehn Betrieben, die überwiegend Metallpulver und in geringerem Umfang auch Kunststoffpulver einsetzten. Es wurden sowohl personengetragene als auch ortsfeste Messungen durchgeführt, deren Schwerpunkt auf der Ermittlung der Exposition gegenüber der einatembaren (E-Staub) und alveolengängigen Staubfraktion (A-Staub) sowie deren Inhaltsstoffen lag. Die Arbeitsplatzgrenzwerte (AGW) für E- und A-Staub wurden mit Ausnahme eines Betriebes, der Kunststoffpulver verarbeitete, stets eingehalten. Bei der Verarbeitung von Metallpulvern kam es hingegen mehrfach zu Überschreitungen der Beurteilungsmaßstäbe (BM) metallischer Legierungsbestandteile in den Staubfraktionen. Basierend auf den Messergebnissen und betrieblichen Bedingungen wurden Empfehlungen abgeleitet, um Tätigkeiten mit Gefahrstoffen in dieser aufstrebenden Fertigungsmethode sicher zu gestalten.

In addition to the gravimetric determination of airborne particles (total concentration), it is often necessary to selectively determine metals and their compounds in particle fractions because of their toxicological relevance. Usually, the total metal concentration is determined independently of the type of binding or oxidation state in a sample. From an occupational medical and toxicological point of view it makes sense to distinguish between different compounds of a metal, because type and extent of the toxic effect of metals depend considerably on their binding type and their solubility in the human body. In addition to the limit values of the respirable and inhalable particle fraction that must be complied with, many metals have an OEL (occupational exposure limit) or MAK value that has to be checked and complied with, too. For carcinogenic compounds the exposure-risk relationship has to be considered. Analysis for metals and their compounds predominantly resorts to methods which The MAK Collection for Occupational Health and Safety 2020, Vol 5, No 4 1 Air Monitoring Methods – Determination of metal-containing components of airborne particles require that the dust particle sample is brought into solution.That means the metals and their compounds contained in the sample need to be extracted, dissolved or digested. Aim of the sample preparation is the complete solution of all relevant substances to be analysed. Common digestion methods are for example acid digestion, which uses an acid mixture to digest the sample, and the suspension method, in which acetone is used to suspend the sample. An alternative sample preparation method is the microwave-assisted pressure digestion with acid/acid mixture. In this chapter the different digestion methods are presented, discussed and compared, taking into account recent developments, in particular microwave-assisted digestion.

Die Abfüllung von Gefahrstoffen ist eine weit verbreitete Tätigkeit. Nach der Abfüllung von Lösemitteln [1] hat die Bundesanstalt für Arbeitsschutz und Arbeitsmedizin (BAuA) die Abfüllung fester Stoffe in verschiedene Behälter – von der Pulverflasche über Säcke bis hin zu Big Bags – untersucht. Neben der Messung der alveolengängigen und der einatembaren Staubfraktion wurden die Staubwerte für alle abgefüllten Stoffe entsprechend der Norm DIN EN 15051-3 [2] bestimmt. Die Ermittlung der Staubwerte beider Staubfraktionen für die abgefüllten Stoffe ergab eine Korrelation für deren Umrechnung mittels einer Exponentialfunktion. Bei der Befüllung zeigten sich bei personengetragenen Messungen Zusammenhänge zwischen der Konzentration der einatembaren Staubfraktion und dem zugehörigen Staubwert des abgefüllten Feststoffes. Diese Feststellung weist darauf hin, dass der Staubwert für die einatembare Staubfraktion zur Kategorisierung des Freisetzungspotenzials im Rahmen des Einfachen Maßnahmenkonzeptes Gefahrstoffe (EMKG) [3] zur Ableitung geeigneter Schutzmaßnahmen anwendbar ist. Zudem zeigte sich, dass für die Umrechnung der gemessenen Luftkonzentrationen beider Staubfraktionen ineinander eine Potenzfunktion am besten geeignet ist. Diese Umrechnung eignet sich für stärker standardisierte Tätigkeiten deutlich besser als für Tätigkeiten, bei denen das individuelle Verhalten des Beschäftigten expositionsbestimmend ist.

Filling of containers with bulk material is a widespread activity in many enterprises and branches. Using the measurement strategy developed for filling of containers with organic liquids [1], the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA) investigated filling of bulk material into containers of different shape and size -from powder flasks over sacks to big bags. Beneath measurement of airborne respirable and inhalable particle fraction the dustiness has been determined according to EN 15051, part 3 [2].The estimated dustiness for both particle fractions shows a good correlation for their conversion using an exponential function. Personal air sampling of the inhalable particle fraction shows correlations between airborne particle concentration and dustiness both for manual filling and filling stations.This finding indicates that dustiness of the inhalable particle fraction is applicable for the categorisation of the exposure potential in the framework of the "Easy-to-use workplace control scheme for hazardous substances" (EMKG) [3]. Furthermore, for the conversion of inhalable to respirable particle fraction a power function is most suitable. It was found, that this kind of conversion is much better suited for more standardised activities compared to such activities, where workers' individual behaviour is more determining their exposure.

AbstractThis analytical method is a validated measurement procedure for the determination of citric acid [77‐92‐9] in workplace air in a concentration range of one tenth up to twice the currently valid OEL or MAK value of 2 mg/m3 E. Sampling is performed by drawing a defined volume of air through a glass fibre filter, which is inserted in a GSP sampling system. using a suitable flow‐regulated pump with a volumetric flow rate of 10 L/min or 3,5 L/min. For sampling 2 hours or 15 min (checking the short‐term value) can be used. The collected citric acid is extracted with diluted caustic soda and analysed by means of high performance liquid chromatography using an UV detector. The quantitative determination is based on a calibration function obtained by means of a multiple‐point calibration. The absolute limit of quantification (LOQ) is 12 ng and the relative LOQ is 0.005 mg/m3based on an air sample volume of approx. 1200 L (0.014 mg/m3based on air sample volume of 420 L) or 0.04 mg/m3based on an air sample volume of approx. 150 L (for short‐term value) (0.11 mg/m3based on air sample volume of 52.5 L). The mean recovery was 100% and the expanded uncertainty for the overall measurement method was 18%.

This analytical method is a validated measurement procedure for the determination and limit value monitoring of 1‐ethoxy‐2‐propanol, 1‐ethoxy‐2‐propyl acetate, 2‐(2‐methoxyethoxy)ethanol, 2‐(2‐ethoxyethoxy)ethanol and 2‐(2‐butoxyethoxy)ethanol in workplace air. With this method simultaneously airborne glycols in the gaseous state as well as particles are collected. Sampling is performed by drawing a defined volume of air through the sampling system GGP‐Mini consisting of a glass fibre filter and a charcoal tube connected downstream using a suitable flow‐regulated pump. The flow rate is set to 0.33 L/min with a recommended air sample volume of 40 L. The collected glycols are desorbed with a mixture of dichloromethane/methanol containing 1‐hexanol as internal standard and then analysed by means of gas chromatography using FID. The quantitative evaluation is based on calibration functions obtained by means of multiple‐point calibrations. The limit of quantification (LOQ) for the individual glycol esters or glycol ethers is 0.5 mg/m 3 based on an air sample volume of 40 L. Joint Publication of the Analytical Subcommittee of the Chemistry Board of Experts of the Expert Committee Raw Materials and Chemical Industry of the German Social Accident Insurance and the working group “Air Analyses” of the Permanent Senate Commission of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area.

Abstract This analytical method is a validated measurement procedure for the determination of 11 alkanolamines such as 2‐aminoethanol, diethanolamine, triethanolamine, 2‐amino‐2‐methyl‐1‐propanol, 2‐(dimethylamino)ethanol, 2‐(2‐aminoethoxy)ethanol, methyl diethanolamine, 4‐amino‐1‐butanol, (S)‐3‐amino‐1,2‐propanediol, 1‐amino‐2‐propanol and 2‐amino‐2‐methyl‐1,3‐propanediol in workplace air averaged over the sampling period after personal or stationary sampling. Sampling is performed by drawing a defined volume of air through a quartz fibre filter impregnated with methanesulfonic acid. The filter is positioned in a GSP sampling head which comply with the requirement of EN 481 for inhalable aerosols and EN 13936 for particle/vapour mixtures. After solvent extraction the sample solution is analysed by means of ion chromatography with a conductivity detector. The quantitative determination of the alkanolamines is based on calibration functions obtained by means of multiple‐point calibrations. The limit of quantification for an individual alkanolamine is in the range from 0.087 to 0.58 mg/m 3 . Joint Publication of the Analytical Subcommittee of the Chemistry Board of Experts of the Expert Committee Raw Materials and Chemical Industry of the German Social Accident Insurance and the working group “Air Analyses” of the Permanent Senate Commission of the DFG for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area.

The Technical Rule for Hazardous Substances (TRGS) "Exhausts of diesel engines" was revised by the German Hazardous Substance Committee (AGS) and published in 2019. Especially, the new occupational exposure limits (OELs) for diesel engine emissions, and nitric oxide and nitrogen dioxide required this revision. Additionally, new developments in engine technology and exhaust after treatment have been considered. This publication is aimed to help the user of this TRGS in practice.

Abstract This analytical method is a validated measurement procedure for the determination of nitrobenzene [ 98‐95‐3 ] in workplace air in a concentration range of one tenth up to twice the currently valid OEL or MAK value of 0.51 mg/m 3 . With this method simultaneously airborne nitrobenzene in the gaseous state as well as particles are collected. Sampling is performed by drawing a defined volume of air through a quartz fibre filter located in the sampling head GGP‐Mini with an adsorption tube filled with Tenax TA connected downstream using a suitable pump. The flow rate is set to 0.066 L/min with a recommended air sample volume of approx. 4 litres. The collected nitrobenzene is thermally desorbed and then analysed by means of gas chromatography using two detectors, a FID for quantification and a MSD to recognise potential interferences. The quantitative determination is based on a calibration function obtained by means of a multi‐point calibration. The limit of quantification is 0.0085 mg/m 3 based on an air sample of 4 litres.

The assessment of air concentrations of hazardous substances may be performed using different assessment criteria. On the one hand, it is crucial if activities with or without hazardous substances are carried out. Otherwise, it has to be taken into account whether outdoor or indoor activities occur. Different scenarios are considered and exposure assessment using occupational exposure limits, immission limit values and indoor air guide values is described. Especially, situations which are not clearly distinguishable are considered.

Abstract This analytical method is a validated measurement procedure for the determination of 1,3‐butadiene [ 106‐99‐0 ] in workplace air averaged over the sampling period after personal or stationary sampling. Sampling is performed by drawing a defined volume of air through a charcoal tube using a suitable flow‐regulated pump. The flow rate is set to 40 mL/min with a recommended air sample volume of 20 L. The collected 1,3‐butadiene is desorbed with a mixture of benzyl alcohol/dimethyl sulfoxide/water (90+5+5 v:v) and then analysed by means of headspace‐GC and a mass selective detector (MSD). The quantitative evaluation is based on a calibration function obtained by means of a multiple‐point calibration using dichloromethane‐D 2 as internal standard. Based on the resulting peak areas the respective mass of 1,3‐butadiene can be obtained from the calibration function. The absolute limit of quantification (LOQ) is 0.5 µg for 1,3‐butadiene deposited on a charcoal tube. The mean recovery was 84% and the expanded uncertainty for 1,3‐butadiene was between 21 and 23%. Joint Publication of the Analytical Subcommittee of the Chemistry Board of Experts of the Expert Committee Raw Materials and Chemical Industry of the German Social Accident Insurance and the working group “Air Analyses” of the Permanent Senate Commission of the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area.

Abstract This analytical method is a validated measurement procedure for the determination of 2‐phenoxyethanol [ 122‐99‐6 ] in workplace air in a concentration range of one tenth up to twice the currently valid MAK value of 5,7 mg/m 3 . With this method simultaneously airborne 2‐phenoxyethanol in the gaseous state as well as particles are collected. Sampling is performed by drawing a defined volume of air through a quartz fibre filter located in the sampling head with an adsorption tube filled with Tenax TA® connected downstream using a suitable pump. The flow rate is set to 0.066 L/min with a recommended air sample volume of approx. 4 litres. The collected 2‐phenoxyethanol alcohol is thermally desorbed and then analysed by means of gas chromatography using two detectors, a FID for quantification and a MSD to recognise potential interferences. The quantitative determination is based on a calibration function obtained by means of a multi‐point calibration. The limit of quantification is 0,095 mg/m 3 based on an air sample of approx. 4 litres.

Die Beurteilung der Konzentrationen von Gefahrstoffen in der Luft kann anhand verschiedener Beurteilungsmaßstäbe erfolgen. Einerseits ist dafür ausschlaggebend, ob Tätigkeiten mit Gefahrstoffen oder ohne Gefahrstoffe ausgeführt werden. Andererseits ist auch immer zu berücksichtigen, ob die Tätigkeiten im Freien, in teilweise geschlossenen oder geschlossenen Arbeitsbereichen erfolgen. Es werden einzelne Szenarien näher betrachtet und die Expositionsbeurteilung wird anhand von Arbeitsplatzgrenzwerten, Immissionsgrenzwerten und Innenraumrichtwerten dargestellt. Dabei wird insbesondere auf solche Situationen eingegangen, die sich nicht eindeutig voneinander abgrenzen lassen.

Die vom Ausschuss für Gefahrstoffe (AGS) überarbeitete und 2019 veröffentlichte Technische Regel für Gefahrstoffe (TRGS) 554 „Abgase von Dieselmotoren“ weist eine Reihe von Änderungen gegenüber der bisherigen Fassung auf. So wurden insbesondere wegen der Festlegung neuer Arbeitsplatzgrenzwerte neben den partikulären Dieselrußpartikeln auch die Stickoxide – Stickstoffmonoxid und -dioxid – berücksichtigt. Die in der Motorentechnik und der Abgasnachbehandlung erfolgten technischen Weiterentwicklungen fanden ebenfalls ihren Niederschlag. In dieser Veröffentlichung werden einige erläuternde Hinweise zur praktischen Anwendung dieser TRGS geliefert.