Evaluation of Air 

Sampling Methods 

for Abrasive Blasting – 

Louisiana

David Sylvain, MS, CIH

Diana Ceballos, MS, PhD

Max Kiefer, MA, CIH

Health Hazard Evaluation Report

HETA 2001-0279-3163

September 2012

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Workplace

Safety and Health

 National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health
The employer shall post a copy of this report 

for a period of 30 calendar days at or near 

the workplace(s) of affected employees. The 

employer shall take steps to insure that the 

posted determinations are not altered, defaced, 

or covered by other material during such 

period. [37 FR 23640, November 7, 1972, as 

amended at 45 FR 2653, January 14, 1980].
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page i

Report Abbreviations................................................................................................ii

Highlights of the NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluation........................iii

Summary ........................................................................................................iv

Introduction ...................................................................................................1

Assessment.....................................................................................................4

Results..............................................................................................................6

Discussion.................................................................................................... 10

Conclusions................................................................................................. 11

References.................................................................................................... 12

Contents

Acknowledgments Acknowledgments and Availability of Report................................ 17
Page ii Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

Abbreviations

μm Micrometer

BAS Button Aerosol Sampler®

HHE Health hazard evaluation

LOD Limit of detection

Lpm Liters per minute

mg Milligram

mg/m3 Milligrams per cubic meter

mm Millimeter

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NAICS North American Industry Classification System

OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration

PBZ Personal breathing zone

PPE Personal protective equipment
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page iii

The National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) received 

a request for a health 

hazard evaluation at a 

shipyard in Louisiana. 

Shipyard managers 

asked investigators 

to compare methods 

for collecting personal 

breathing zone air 

samples for particulates 

during abrasive blasting. 

Abrasive blasting is the 

cleaning or finishing of 

surfaces by the use of 

an abrasive carried in a 

strong current of air.

Highlights of the

NIOSH Health

Hazard Evaluation

What NIOSH Did

● We took air samples at the shipyard. Samples were collected 

during outdoor abrasive blasting where coal slag was used.

● We used a 37-millimeter diameter filter cassette and both an 

unshielded and a shielded button aerosol sampler to collect 

side-by-side personal breathing zone samples. These devices 

were connected to air sampling pumps.

● We also used the same sampling devices, without an air 

sampling pump, to collect personal breathing zone samples.

● We measured total dust and inhalable dust. We analyzed the 

particle size of the dust.

What NIOSH Found

● All three sampling methods collected too much particulate. 

This is called overloading.

● The 37-millimeter diameter filter cassettes collected a few 

large particulates.

● Overloading happened when the sampling devices were 

connected to an air sampling pump and when they were not.

● Overloading caused frequent sampling pump failures.

● Sampling pumps often disconnected or turned off as a result 

of the harsh abrasive blasting environment.

What NIOSH Concludes

● Sampling methods that can withstand the harsh abrasive 

blasting environment have not been developed.

● Sampling methods that do not overload and prevent 

large particulate from entering the device have not been 

developed. This is needed for accurate measurements of 

employee exposures during abrasive blasting operations.
Page iv Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

NIOSH evaluated three 

PBZ air sampling methods 

during abrasive blasting 

operations at a shipyard. 

We found overloaded 

air sample filters for all 

three methods, which 

caused frequent failures 

of the air sampling 

pumps. We concluded 

that improved sampling 

methods were needed 

to accurately measure 

employee exposures 

during abrasive blasting 

operations.

Summary

NIOSH received a request for an HHE from the management at 

a Louisiana shipyard to evaluate sampling methods for measuring 

employee PBZ exposures during abrasive blasting. On July 20, 

2001, NIOSH investigators collected side-by-side PBZ air samples 

using three types of commercially available sampling devices: a 

closed-face 37-mm cassette, an unshielded BAS, and a shielded 

BAS. For each type of sampling device we collected an “active” PBZ 

sample that was connected to an air sampling pump and a “passive” 

PBZ sample that was not connected to an air sampling pump. 

These active and passive samples were collected side-by-side for the 

duration of the abrasive blasting activity (approximately 60 to 80 

minutes). Samples were used to evaluate whether inertia-driven 

abrasive material could enter the sampler during abrasive blasting. 

All of the air samplers were positioned outside the employees’ 

abrasive blasting helmet following OSHA sampling guidance. Total 

dust was measured for the 37-mm filter samples. Inhalable dust was 

measured for the unshielded and shielded BAS samples.

The harsh and dusty abrasive blasting environment caused 

frequent sampling pump failures. Because of the failures, there was 

insufficient data for a statistical comparison of the air sampling 

results for the three sampling methods. All 37-mm cassette 

samples contained inertia-driven (loose) abrasive grit particles 

that accounted for up to 99% of the total particle weight. All 

unshielded and shielded BAS samples contained loose particulate. 

BAS total weights exceeded the recommended maximum sample 

loading of 2 mg. Some of the passive samples collected a similar 

amount of particulate as the active samples.

We concluded that none of the sampling methods we used 

performed reliably in an abrasive blasting environment. All were 

likely to overestimate air concentrations because of the presence 

of inertia-driven particulate in the samplers. Improving the design 

of sampling devices or developing alternative sampling methods 

is needed to accurately and reliably assess PBZ dust exposure 

concentrations during abrasive blasting operations.

Keywords: NAICS 336611 (Ship Building and Repairing), abrasive 

blasting, air sampling, button aerosol sampler, abrasive blasting 

sampler, total particulate, inhalable particulate.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 1

Introduction

On July 20, 2001, we responded to a request for an HHE from 

the health and safety manager at a shipyard. The manager was 

concerned with the accuracy of particulate sampling methods 

for abrasive blasting. Current OSHA sampling and analytical 

methods can overestimate worker exposures to airborne metals and 

other particulate contaminants during abrasive blasting [NIOSH 

1994,1998; OSHA 2012a]. The objectives of this HHE were to 

compare three commercially available sampling devices in an 

abrasive blasting environment and to evaluate whether a protective 

shield designed for one of the sampling devices prevented inertiadriven particles from entering and possibly overloading the sampler.

Background

Abrasive Blasting 

Abrasive blasting utilizes pneumatic or hydraulic pressure or 

centrifugal force to direct a blast of abrasive material (wet or 

dry) to clean a surface, remove burrs, or impart a surface finish. 

Many abrasive blasting methods use either manual or automatic 

equipment [Clayton and Clayton 1978]. Metallic (e.g., steel shot) 

and non-metallic (e.g., coal slag, walnut shells) abrasives can be used. 

Because large quantities of dust can be generated, shipyard abrasive 

blasting is typically conducted within a ventilated enclosure.

Employees conducting shipyard abrasive blasting are exposed to 

safety hazards (e.g., rebound shot, high-pressure discharge, falls) 

and health hazards (e.g., inhalable airborne particulates, noise). 

OSHA has established regulatory requirements for ventilation, 

enclosures, and PPE during abrasive blasting [OSHA 2012b]. Type 

CE airline respirators, required for work inside blast-cleaning 

enclosures, are equipped with head, neck, and upper body 

coverings to protect employees from rebounding abrasive blasting 

material [NIOSH 1987].

Sampling Issues 

Previous studies have shown that PBZ sampling during abrasive 

blasting using 37-mm cassettes can overestimate exposure to 

non-inhalable particulate because large inertia-driven particulate 

can enter the sampling cassettes [NIOSH 1994, 1998]. New or 

improved sampling methods are needed to evaluate PBZ exposure 

during abrasive blasting. Some alternative air sampling methods 

that have been suggested for exposure monitoring during abrasive 
Page 2 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

blasting include shielding the 37-mm filter cassette inlet to exclude 

non-inhalable particles, mounting the PBZ air sampler behind the 

employee’s head to protect the sampler from rebounding abrasive 

materials, and using the Institute of Medicine inhalable dust 

sampler. None of these alternatives has been found to be practical 

or effective in abrasive blasting environments [NIOSH 1994,1998]. 

Sampling simultaneously inside and outside the employees’ 

abrasive blast hood has shown that the lower air concentrations 

inside the abrasive blast hood produce less overloading of the 37-

mm cassettes [NIOSH 1998]; however, sampling inside PPE is not 

accepted by OSHA for compliance purposes [OSHA 2012a,b].

Aizenberg et al. [2000a] used a BAS with a prototype shield to 

evaluate PBZ exposures during abrasive blasting operations at four 

U.S. Air Force bases. The BAS (SKC Inc., Eighty Four, Pennsylvania) 

had a dome-shaped stainless steel screen sampling head with screen 

openings of a nominal diameter of 381 μm. The prototype shield 

was an additional external curved protective screen (4 × 2.5 inches). 

The reusable BAS had a collection efficiency that approximated the 

inhalable particle size-selective convention when operated at a flow 

rate of 4 Lpm [Aizenberg et al. 2000b]. The BAS was selected for 

the Air Force study because of its apparent durability and a screen 

design that was expected to prevent high-velocity abrasive particles 

from entering the sampler and damaging the filter. Although the 

unshielded BAS was developed to maintain sampling efficiency in 

the presence of wind currents that could cause the 37-mm cassette 

to underestimate inhalable aerosols [Kalatoor et al. 1995; Hauck 

et al. 1997; Aizenberg et al. 1998], the investigators found that 

the unshielded BAS was susceptible to particulate overloading. In 

response, the prototype shield was designed to protect the BAS 

from high-velocity abrasive materials, reduce clogging of the inlet 

screen, and prevent non-inhalable particles from overloading the 

filter. The investigators reported that the protective shield prevented 

non-inhalable particles from overloading the filter and did not 

interfere with sampling smaller particles; however, the researchers 

did not determine whether the prototype protective shield altered the 

collection efficiency of the BAS.

Following the U.S. Air Force study, SKC Inc. designed a snap-on 

dome-shaped stainless steel protective secondary shield for use 

with the BAS when sampling during abrasive blasting (Abrasive 

Blasting Sampler for Heavy Metals kit). This shield differed from 

the prototype screen tested previously by Aizenberg et al. [2000a] 

Introduction

 (continued)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 3

in that the screen was circular and the screen openings were 

approximately 500 μm in diameter. The SKC shield was intended 

to protect the inlet screen from mechanical damage, prevent 

clogging, and exclude noninhalable particles while sampling 

during abrasive blasting operations. Although the collection 

efficiency of the unshielded BAS has been shown to approximate 

the international inhalability convention [Aizenberg et al. 2001], 

the collection efficiency of the commercially available shielded 

BAS has not been evaluated. Nevertheless, the shielded BAS is 

marketed as a sampler for abrasive blasting operations. Because of 

uncertainty about possible effects that shielding may have on the 

performance characteristics of the BAS, a goal of this HHE was to 

evaluate the effectiveness of this protective shield on the BAS in 

excluding noninhalable particulate.

Facility and Process Description

The shipyard used for this evaluation constructed naval and 

commercial vessels. Mild steel plates were fabricated into ship 

components called subsections. These subsections were welded 

together to build larger subassemblies, which were combined to 

form even larger units consisting of the hull, decks, bulkheads, 

tanks, and compartments. Each unit was moved into either a blast 

building or an outdoor blasting area for manual abrasive blasting 

to remove scale, rust, and lead-free preconstruction primer. Blasted 

units were then painted and joined to other units. 

Employees performing abrasive blasting were provided with 

showers and separate lockers for street and work clothes. They were 

required by the shipyard to participate in a medical monitoring 

program that included physical examinations. Abrasive blasters 

wore gloves, boots, coveralls, and a Type CE airline respirator. 

Introduction

 (continued)
Page 4 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

This evaluation was conducted outdoors in an area without 

mechanical ventilation. Coal slag abrasive was used. Unlike steel 

abrasives, coal slag shatters upon impact, creating smaller diameter 

particulate during abrasive blasting. We collected “active” and 

“passive” side-by-side PBZ samples outside the abrasive blasting 

hoods of randomly selected abrasive blasters. In this report “active” 

means that the air sampling device (the BAS or filter cassette) was 

connected to an air sampling pump, and “passive” means that 

these devices were not connected to an air sampling pump. The 

intent was to determine whether inertia-driven particulate entered 

the sampler. 

Three rounds of air sampling were conducted, each for 

approximately 60 to 80 minutes coinciding with employees 

entering and exiting the blasting area. Because placing three 

sampling pumps on an abrasive blaster was impractical, we paired 

active samplers using three combinations: (1) shielded BAS and 

37-mm cassette samplers, (2) unshielded and shielded BAS, and (3) 

unshielded BAS and 37-mm cassette samplers. Each employee was 

assigned a different pairing during each round of sampling.

Passive samples were collected by attaching a 4-inch length of 

Tygon tubing to the same type of sampler and filter used in active 

samples. Active and passive samples were located side-by-side, 

collecting up to 4 samples from each employee. A total of 11 active 

and 11 passive 37-mm cassette samples, 10 active and 2 passive 

unshielded BAS samples, and 12 active and 2 passive shielded 

BAS samples were collected in the three rounds. A limited number 

of passive BAS samples were collected because we had a limited 

number of BAS devices.

The cassettes and BAS samplers were visually examined at the 

laboratory and photographed to record evidence of particulate 

overloading, physical damage to either the filter or sampler, and 

clogged or damaged sampling screens. Exposure assessment of the 

abrasive blasters was not the focus of this evaluation. Therefore, the 

PBZ concentrations measured in this evaluation do not necessarily 

reflect the full-shift exposures to the abrasive blasters and are not 

comparable to occupational exposure limits for general industry 

and shipyards.

Assessment
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 5

37-mm Cassette Sampling and 

Analysis 

Active air samples were collected using precalibrated and 

postcalibrated AirChek® 52 air sampling pumps (SKC Inc., Eighty 

Four, Pennsylvania) at approximately 2 Lpm connected via Tygon® 

tubing to 37-mm cassettes containing a tared 37-mm diameter, 

5-μm pore size, polyvinyl chloride filter.

Cassette samples were analyzed gravimetrically for total particulate 

according to NIOSH Method 0500 [NIOSH 2012]. Prior to 

gravimetric analyses, total particulate samples were separated into 

two fractions: (1) filter and particulate matter adhering to the 

filter, and (2) loose particulate matter. The loose particulates were 

removed from the cassette by turning the cassette upside down 

after the top was removed and collecting all particulate that fell 

freely from the cassette and/or filter. No tapping or other physical 

action was used. The two fractions were added to calculate the 

concentration of total particulate. The loose particulate fraction was 

visually compared with a Tyler Standard Screen Scale to determine 

the approximate particle size. The LOD was 0.02 mg/sample.

Button Aerosol Sampler Sampling and 

Analysis

Active samples were collected using precalibrated and 

postcalibrated AirChek® 224-PCXR8 sampling pumps (SKC 

Inc., Eighty Four, Pennsylvania) at approximately 4 Lpm attached 

to selected employees and connected, via Tygon tubing, to 

unshielded BASs (button aerosol sampler, part number 225-360, 

SKC Inc., Eighty Four, Pennsylvania) and shielded BASs (abrasive 

blasting sampler, part number 225-367, SKC Inc., Eighty Four, 

Pennsylvania) containing tared 25-mm diameter, 5-μm pore size, 

polyvinyl chloride filters.

BAS samples were gravimetrically analyzed for inhalable particulate 

according to NIOSH Method 0500 [NIOSH 2012]. Before analysis 

the filters were inspected for loose particles. Any loose particulate 

present was noted but not separated from the filter. The LOD was 

0.02 mg/sample.

Assessment

 (continued)
Page 6 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

Side-by-side air sample results for the three sampling methods are 

presented in Table 1. Although no samplers were lost or damaged, 

the air sampling pumps failed on two filter cassette samples, six 

unshielded BAS samples, and seven shielded BAS samples. The 

sampling time could not be estimated for some of the pump 

failures because the pump timers were not operating. Other 

sample failures included the air sampling pump shutting off or the 

airline tubing becoming disconnected between the filter cassette 

and pump during sampling. As a result of these sampling failures, 

we were left with only four pairs of side-by-side active samples 

to compare concentrations among different methods (bolded 

sampling results in Table 1).

Side-by-side active and passive unshielded BASs without a sampling 

failure resulted in only one valid sampling pair from Round 2, 

arco deck. The active sample collected 26 mg, while the passive 

sample collected 10 mg (sampling period of 69 minutes). No 

passive shielded BAS sample was collected with an active sample 

that did not experience a sampling failure. All BAS samples (active 

and passive) had loose particulate on the filters and the sampling 

devices, and the total weight of each sample exceeded the 2 mg 

recommended maximum sample loading for this method.

Gravimetric sampling results for paired active and passive 37-mm 

cassette samplers without sampling failure are presented in Table 

2. The mass collected by the devices is reported so that active and 

passive samples can be easily compared. All but one passive 37-mm 

cassette sample exceeded the maximum weight of 2 mg per sample 

according to NIOSH Method 0500. For the 37-mm cassette activepassive pairs, the weight of some of the passive samples exceeded 

that of the corresponding active sample (Table 2). On average, 

passive 37-mm cassettes collected 74% of the mass compared to the 

corresponding active cassettes.

As shown in Table 2, loose particulate was found in the active and 

passive 37-mm cassettes. Most of this loose particulate was less 

than 53 μm in diameter (based on visual comparison with a Tyler 

Standard Screen Scale). One sample contained a few particles in 

the 297–420 μm range, and another contained a single particle in 

this range. The largest particle was in the 1190–1680 μm range. All 

but a few of the particles collected in these samples were within the 

inhalable size range of < 100 μm aerodynamic diameter.

Results
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 7

Table 1. Side-by-side PBZ air sample results for the three active sampling methods

Total Concentration (mg/m3)

Location Time (min) 37-mm 

cassette

Unshielded 

BAS

Shielded 

BAS

Round 1

Open-air blasting on shaft covers 67 1,400* — 580

Beneath inverted Arco deck 76 — 70 †

Unit 1230, large unit with piping 81 2,200 † †

Unit 1230, using man lift 61 1,500‡ — 25,000*

Unit 1230, overhead blasting NA§ — † †

Round 2

Arco deck 69 43¶ 90¶ —

Unit 1230 72 3,400** — †

Unit 1230, using man lift 73 2,700†† 2,400* —

unit 1230, using man lift 65 660‡‡ 15§§ —

Unit 1230, overhead blasting 72 610 — †

Arco deck, open area 47 — 480¶ 160¶

Round 3

Arco deck 75 — 280¶ 75¶

Unit 1230 27 — 79* 200*

Unit 1230, using man lift 68 930 † —

Unit 1230, overhead blasting 40 110¶ — 150¶

Arco deck, open area 87 † — 84

Total percent of sample failure 18% 60% 58%

*Sampling pump faulted and active sampling period was known, but less than the entire sampling period.

†Sampling pump faulted and active sampling period was unknown, but less than the entire sampling period.

‡When the sampler was opened, the filter was stained, wrinkled, and off center.

§NA = not available.

¶ Bolded numbers are sample pairs that had no sampling failures and can be compared.

**The approximate size of few loose particles was 297–420 μm.

††The approximate size of one loose particle was 1190–1680 μm.

‡‡The approximate size of one loose particle was 297–420 μm.

§§Sampling pump inadvertently switched off.

Results

 (continued)
Page 8 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

As shown in Figure 1, the shielded BASs overloaded despite 

the protective shield. The shielded BAS shown in Figure 1 was 

connected to a pump that faulted 10 minutes into the 61-minute 

sampling period. Figure 2 shows a 37-mm cassette sample whose 

pump operated for the entire 61-minute sampling period. Both 

samples in Figure 1 and 2 were grossly overloaded, well beyond the 

recommended maximum sample weight of 2 mg per sample.

Results

 (continued)

Table 2. Side-by-side PBZ active and passive 37-mm cassette air sample results without a sampling failure*

Location

Total Active 37-mm Cassettes Passive 37-mm Cassettes

Time

(min)

Mass (mg) Mass (mg)

Total 

Dust

Loose 

Particle

% Loose

Particle

Total 

Dust 

Loose

Particle

% Loose

Particle

Round 1

Unit 1230, large unit with piping 81 330 330 99† 370 370 100

Unit 1230, using man lift 61 180‡ 170 97 110 110 97†

Round 2

Arco deck 69 5.6 1.9 34 ND§ ND ND

Unit 1230 72 470¶ 460 99 140 140 98†

Unit 1230, using man lift 73 380** 380 99† 290 290 99†

Unit 1230, using man lift 65 85†† 78 92 17 16 96

Unit 1230, overhead blasting 72 85 79 93 28 28 99†

Round 3

Unit 1230, using man lift 68 130 120 96 220 220 99†

*Data are shown to two significant digits.

†Data less than 100% because of the rounding to two significant digits.

‡When the sampler was opened, the filter was stained, wrinkled, and off center.

§ND = not detected, the mass was below the LOD.

¶The approximate size of few loose particles was 297–420 μm.

**The approximate size of one loose particle was 1190–1680 μm.

††The approximate size of one loose particle was 297–420 μm.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 9

Figure 1. Loose particulate inside a shielded BAS active sample. The 

external shield that would go over the protective screen is not shown. 

Figure 2. Loose particulate and a damaged filter from a 37-mm filter 

cassette active sample. 

Results

 (continued)
Page 10 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

Discussion

The first objective of this evaluation was to compare three 

commercially available abrasive blasting sampling devices. Because 

of sampling failures, fewer than half of the BAS samples produced 

reliable gravimetric data. Overloading likely caused high back 

pressures resulting in failure of the sampling pumps. The harsh 

abrasive blasting environment also contributed to sample failures 

by disconnecting tubing or unintentionally turning off pumps. As 

a result, very few paired samples were available to compare 37-mm 

cassette results with shielded and unshielded BAS results. Among 

paired samples, overloading was a problem with most 37-mm 

cassettes and all BAS samples. Overloading of 37-mm cassettes was 

further verified by the loose particulate inside the sampler that 

could not adhere to the filter. Although a statistical comparison 

of sampler performance was not possible because of insufficient 

data, we made general observations regarding the usability of these 

samplers during abrasive blasting.

The presence of loose particulate in the 37-mm cassettes and the 

overloaded samples was not surprising because both have been 

documented during abrasive blasting operations using steel shot 

[NIOSH 1994, 1998] and coal slag [NIOSH 2007]. Noninhalable 

particulate of steel grit trapped in the cassette has also been 

documented [NIOSH 1994; OSHA 2012a]. In this evaluation, the 

presence of a few large loose particulates inside the 37-mm cassettes 

verifies that noninhalable particulate can enter into the sampler 

during abrasive blasting using coal slag. In contrast, overloading 

and the presence of loose particulate in the BASs were unexpected 

because the outer shield was designed to prevent this occurrence 

[SKC 2012].

The second objective was to evaluate whether the shielded BAS 

prevented inertia-driven particles from overloading the sampler. 

Inertia-driven particulate entering passively accumulated in all 

unshielded and shielded BASs as well as most of the 37-mm 

cassettes. The BAS also presented analytical challenges because 

particulate was found in the grooves of the protective screen, 

behind the filter backup pad, and stuck to the sample label. The 

presence of loose particulate in the BAS was not anticipated and 

in retrospect should have been handled similarly to the loose 

particulate in the 37-mm cassette samples (separated into two 

fractions and size of loose particulates measured). Therefore, we 

cannot estimate the percentage of loose particulate in the BAS or if 

there was non-inhalable particulates in the loose portion.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 11

It is difficult to estimate the true PBZ concentration for the 

37-mm cassette samples because of the considerable inertiadriven particulate that was collected (Table 2). The passive 

accumulation for the 37-mm cassettes was variable and 

unpredictable, thus preventing us from developing correction 

factors that could be used to adjust for the passive loading 

captured by the active samples. At the time of this evaluation 

there was no method to prevent this inertia-driven particulate 

from entering the 37-mm cassette samplers (either actively 

or passively) without adversely affecting collection efficiency 

and/or the reliability of aerosol samplers in abrasive blasting 

environments.

The external protective shield developed and sold by the 

manufacturer of the BAS has not been thoroughly evaluated 

in abrasive blasting environments to determine its effect on 

collection efficiency. Even if the accuracy and precision of 

results obtained using shielded BASs could be determined 

under abrasive blasting conditions, overloading may continue 

to be a problem. Shortening the sampling period by removing 

the sampling device may reduce or prevent overloading but may 

be impractical in the shipyard environment because it could 

disrupt the abrasive blasting operation. Alternatively, leaving 

the sampling device in place but shutting off the sampling 

pump (via a pump timer) may not prevent overloading because 

inertia-driven particulate could still passively enter the sampling 

device. Stephenson et al. [2002] reported copper slag abrasive 

generating total particulate aerosols that exceeded the OSHA 

permissible exposure limit within 15 minutes of blasting under 

controlled conditions. Considering that most abrasive blasting 

operations are longer than 15 minutes, alternative methods 

for accurately and reliably measuring air concentrations during 

abrasive blasting environments are warranted.

Conclusions NIOSH evaluated three air sampling methods during outdoor 

abrasive blasting using coal slag. We found that the three sampling 

methods resulted in overloaded samples, which caused frequent 

sampling pump failures. The 37-mm cassettes collected large 

noninhalable particulate and presented overloading problems. 

Even though known challenges remain with the 37-mm cassettes, 

neither the unshielded or shielded BASs appear to be viable 

alternatives to the 37-mm cassettes to accurately assess exposures in 

abrasive blasting environments.

Discussion

 (continued)
Page 12 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

Current PBZ air sampling techniques do not accurately 

represent employee exposures during abrasive blasting. All three 

sampling methods were likely to overestimate air concentrations. 

Therefore, sampling methods that can more accurately estimate 

exposures during abrasive blasting operations are needed. We 

are not aware of any PBZ sampling methods that are suitable to 

accurately measure exposures during abrasive blasting outside the 

blasting hood. Identification of alternative methods for sampling 

during abrasive blasting operations is still warranted.

Data were not available to assess the influence of the secondary 

protective shield on the shielded BAS performance to collect 

inhalable particulate. Further assessment of the effectiveness of 

the shielded BAS for the PBZ sampling during abrasive blasting 

operations is needed. Identification of an alternative barrier or 

shield that can prevent loose or inertia-driven particulate from 

entering samplers without affecting collection accuracy and 

precision is warranted.

References

 Aizenberg V, Bidinger E, Grinshpun SA, Willeke K, Hamed 

A, Tabakoff W [1998]. Airflow and particle velocities near a 

personal aerosol sampler with a curved, porous aerosol sampling 

surface. Aerosol Sci Technol 28(3):247–258.

Aizenberg B, England A, Grinshpun S, Willeke K, Carlton 

G. [2000a]. Metal exposures among abrasive blasting workers 

at four U.S. air force facilities. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 

15(10):766–772.

Aizenberg V, Grinshpun SA, Willeke K, Smith J, Baron P 

[2000b]. Performance characteristics of the button personal 

inhalable aerosol sampler. AIHAJ 61(3):398–404.

Aizenberg V, Choea, K, Grinshpun SA, Willeke K, Baron P 

[2001]. Evaluation of personal aerosol samplers challenged with 

large particles. J Aerosol Sci 32(6):779–793.

Clayton GD, Clayton FE [1978]. Patty’s industrial hygiene and 

toxicology. Vol I: general principles, 3rd rev. ed. New York: John 

Wiley & Sons.

Conclusions

 (continued)
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 13

Hauck B, Grinshpun S, Reponen A, Willeke K, Bornschein 

R [1997]. Field testing of new aerosol sampling method with a 

porous curved surface as inlet. AIHAJ 58(10):713–719.

Kalatoor, S. Grinshpun S, Willeke K, Baron P [1995]. New 

aerosol sampler with low wind sensitivity and good filter 

collection uniformity. Atmos Environ 29(10):1105–1112.

NIOSH [1987]. Guide to industrial respiratory protection. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 

No. 87-116.

NIOSH [1994]. Health hazard evaluation and technical 

assistance report: Bath Iron Works Corporation. By D. Sylvain. 

Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human 

Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH HETA 

Report No. 94-0122-2578. 

NIOSH [1998]. Health hazard evaluation and technical 

assistance report: Avondale Shipyards. By M. Kiefer, D. Trout, 

M. E. Wallace. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH 

HETA Report No. 97-0260-2716. 

NIOSH [2007]. Applied research and technology report: 

Control technology and exposure assessment for occupational 

exposure to beryllium: Abrasive blasting with coal-slag. By K. 

G. Crouch, A. S. Echt, R. Kurimo, Y. T. Gagnon. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers 

for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH DART Report No. 

EPHB 263-13a.

NIOSH [2012]. NIOSH manual of analytical methods, 4th 

ed. Schlecht PC, O’Connor PF, eds. Cincinnati, OH: U.S. 

Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease 

Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health, DHHS (NIOSH) Publication 94–113 August, 

References

 (continued)
Page 14 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

References

 (continued) 1994); 1st Supplement Publication 96135, 2nd Supplement 

Publication 98–119; 3rd Supplement 2003–154. [http://www.

cdc.gov/niosh/nmam/]. Date accessed: June 2012.

OSHA [2012a]. Abrasive blasting monitoring requirements 

and sampling procedures. Standard interpretation of August 

13, 1999, from Richard E. Fairfax, Director Directorate of 

Compliance Programs. Occupational Safety and Health 

Administration, to Irene S. Fanelli, Environmental Health 

Consultants. [http://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.

show_document?p_table=INTERPRETATIONS&p_id=22777]. 

Date accessed: June 2012.

OSHA [2012b]. U.S. Department of Labor Occupational Safety 

and Health Administration. Directorate of Standards and 

Guidance. Office of Maritime. An OSHA guidance document. 

December 2006. [http://www.osha.gov/dts/maritime/

standards/guidance/shipyard_guidance.html]. Date accessed: 

June 2012.

SKC [2012]. Abrasive Blasting Sampler 225-367 Product Data 

Bulleting. Publication 1602 Rev 1102. [http://www.skcinc.com/

instructions/1602.pdf]. Date accessed: June 2012.

Stephenson D, Spear T, Seymour M, Cashell L [2002]. Airborne 

exposure to heavy metals and total particulate during abrasive 

blasting using copper slag abrasive. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 

17(6):437–443.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 15

This page is left intentionally blank.
Page 16 Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163

This page is left intentionally blank.
Health Hazard Evaluation Report 2001-0279-3163 Page 17

Acknowledgments

and Availability of

Report

The Hazard Evaluations and Technical Assistance Branch 

(HETAB) of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health (NIOSH) conducts field investigations of possible health 

hazards in the workplace. These investigations are conducted 

under the authority of Section 20(a)(6) of the Occupational Safety 

and Health Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C. 669(a)(6) which authorizes 

the Secretary of Health and Human Services, following a written 

request from any employer or authorized representative of 

employees, to determine whether any substance normally found 

in the place of employment has potentially toxic effects in such 

concentrations as used or found. HETAB also provides, upon 

request, technical and consultative assistance to federal, state, and 

local agencies; labor; industry; and other groups or individuals to 

control occupational health hazards and to prevent related trauma 

and disease.

Mention of any company or product does not constitute 

endorsement by NIOSH. In addition, citationAs to websites 

external to NIOSH do not constitute NIOSH endorsement of 

the sponsoring organizations or their programs or products. 

Furthermore, NIOSH is not responsible for the content of these 

websites. All Web addresses referenced in this document were 

accessible as of the publication date.

This report was prepared by David Sylvain, Diana Ceballos, 

and Max Kiefer of HETAB, Division of Surveillance, Hazard 

Evaluations and Field Studies. Industrial hygiene equipment and 

logistical support were provided by Donald Booher. Analytical 

support was provided by Data Chem Laboratories Inc. (Salt Lake 

City, Utah). Statistical support was provided by Stanley Shulman. 

Health communication assistance was provided by Stefanie Evans. 

Editorial assistance was provided by Ellen Galloway. Desktop 

publishing was performed by Greg Hartle and Mary Winfree.

Copies of this report have been sent to employee and management 

representatives at the shipyard, the state health department, 

and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration 

Regional Office. This report is not copyrighted and may be freely 

reproduced. The report may be viewed and printed at http://

www.cdc.gov/niosh/hhe/. Copies may be purchased from the 

National Technical Information Service at 5825 Port Royal Road, 

Springfield, Virginia 22161.
Below is a recommended citation for this report:

NIOSH [2012]. Health hazard evaluation report: evaluation of air sampling methods 

for abrasive blasting – Louisiana. By Sylvain D, Ceballos D, Kiefer M. Cincinnati, 

OH: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Centers for Disease Control 

and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH 

HETA No. 2001-0279-3163.

To receive NIOSH documents or information about 

occupational safety and health topics, contact NIOSH at:

1-800-CDC-INFO (1-800-232-4636)

TTY: 1-888-232-6348

E-mail: cdcinfo@cdc.gov

or visit the NIOSH web site at: www.cdc.gov/niosh.

For a monthly update on news at NIOSH, subscribe to 

NIOSH eNews by visiting www.cdc.gov/niosh/eNews.

Delivering on the Nation’s promise:

Safety and health at work for all people

through research and prevention.

 National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health