commonly used method of using a single compressed air hose. The clothes cleaning pro-
cess was also superior in its ability to uniformly remove dust from all areas of the cove-
ralls used for testing.

Another factor that was considered during this study was the difference in cleaning
effectiveness based upon two different coverall fabrics. This testing confirmed that the-
re was a significant improvement with the cleaning effectiveness of the polyester/cotton
blend coveralls when compared to the pure cotton type. This needs to be considered by
operations considering implementing this new clothes cleaning process.

Another major benefit was that the complete cleaning process was performed in a
fraction of the time. The average cleaning times were as follows: vacuuming: 317 se-
conds; air hose: 178 seconds; clothes cleaning process: 18 seconds.

This clothes cleaning process provides workers a quick, safe, and effective method
to clean their dust laden work clothing periodically throughout the work day. It is rela-
tively in-expensive and can be easily installed at any operation, allowing workers to cle-
an their clothing without contaminating themselves or their co-workers. Although this
process was designed for workers in the mining industry, it is applicable to any industry
where contaminated work clothes are a problem,

Appendix A

Detailed description of coverall weighing process

In preparation for the tests, opaque lightweight plastic bags were sequentially num-
bered for both pre and post use, two 1.2 m (4 ft) by 1.2 m (4 ft) pieces of colored plas-
tic brattice were identically numbered and the coveralls being used by each test subject
were also numbered. A 22.9 cm (9 in) by 33 cm (13 in) aluminum pan was then placed
on an electronic scale and tared to zero. Each empty plastic bag and both clean pieces
of brattice were then weighed separately and recorded. Each clean coverall was then in-
serted into one of the pre bags, re-weighed and this weight was recorded. The coveralls
were then taken outside and soiled with limestone — rock dust. Since the test facility pro-
cessed silica sand, it was decided to use crushed limestone (rock dust) as the clothes so-
iling contaminant, to lower the test personnel’s exposure to silica during testing. Since
crushed limestone has a similar size to the milled silica, it closely mimics the results for
the silica dust. The soiled coveralls were put back into the pre-bag and then again re-
weighed. While standing on a piece of pre-weighed brattice cloth, the test subject remo-
ved the coveralls from the plastic bag and put the coveralls on over this piece of bratti-
ce cloth. The empty plastic bag and brattice cloth containing product that fell off while
donning the coveralls were then re-weighed and recorded. After one of the three cle-
aning methods was completed, the tester removed the coveralls while standing on a dif-
ferent piece of brattice cloth that was also pre-weighed. These coveralls were then pla-
ced into another pre-weighed plastic bag. The cleaned coveralls/bag and the post brat-
tice cloth were then re-weighed to account for any product that fell while removing the


Table 2 Cont'd. Aver:

* Denotes sample taken inside Personal Protective Device (1/2-mask respirator)

corrected respirable dust levels at three sample locations.

Manifold A Manifold B

Outside Inside Inside Outside Inside Inside

Coverall# Booth, Booth, PPD* Coverall# Booth, Booth, — PPD*

Testit Type mgin? mg/m? mg/m? Test# ~~ Type =o mg/m? mg/m? mg/m
1 VCot 0.00 0.09 0.00 ! Cot NA NA NA
2 27Cot =—=s«0.00- 0.19 0.00 2 wot = 0.00. 32.33 OT
3 3Poly 0.00 = 0.09 0.00 3. Poly = 0.00 46.05. 0.05
4 4/Poly 0.00 0.17 0.00 4 4/Poly 0.00 52.43 0.01
5 siCot 0.00. 10.13 0.00 S$ 5Cot = 0.00 71.75. 0.07
6 6iCot = 0.00891 0.52 6 6Cot «15.78 9544 0.03
% 7Poly 0.00 5.56 0.00 7 TPoly 0.009654 (0.02
8 8Poly «0.00 13.17 1.63 8 —-8/Poly = 0.00 77.0105
9 uot 0.00 9.46 0.00 9 9Poly 0.00 51.03 0.00
10 WCot 0.00 13.94 0.52 10 10/Poly = 0.00 106.75. 0.10
IL 3/Poly 0.03 7.14 0.00 i 11/Poly 0.00 60.13 0.02
12 4Poly 0.05 5.58 0.00 12 12Poly = 0.00 83.08 0.03
13 9/Poly = 0.00 10.94 0.04 13 Cot 0.003190.
14 10/Poly 0.28 )=—:14.79 0.00 14 Cot = 0.00 89.94 0.07
15 I1/Poly 0.00 17.45 0.00 is 3/Poly Ou 28.12 0.08
16 12/Poly 0.00. 7.31——0.00 16 4Poly = 0.00 61.05 0.05
17 9Poly 0.00 «9.80 0.00 17 5iCot «0.00 46.74 0.03
18 10/Poly 0.03 10.23 0.00 18 6/Cot 4.65 19.37 0.01
19 | 1/Poly 0.00 11.98 0.00 19 7IPoly 0.00 21.40 0.03
20 -12Poly «0.06 13.19 0.06 20 © 8Poly = 0.00-—S «17.79 ~—(0.00
21 9Poly = 0.03. 13.52 0.00 21 Poly = 2.06. 40.24 0.03
22 10/Poly 0.09 14.09 0.60 22 10/Poly 0.00 26.10 0.04
23 11/Poly 0.03 10.19 0.00 23 1UPoly 0.00 38.35 0.04
24 12/Poly 0.27 8.32 0.00 24 12/Poly 0.00 87.27 0.03
25 1/Cot 0.00 16.80 0.00 25 Cot oot 41.06 0.25
26 = 2Kot = 0.00 15.65 0.00 2% «2 «aM = 54.96 0.00
27 3/Poly 0.00 10.01 0.00 27 Poly 0.0L 39.93 0.00
28 © 4/Poly = 0.00 12.77 0.03 28 © 4/Poly = 001. 38.14 0.00
29 «Poly = «0.00 «6.84 0.00 29 Sot = 0.01. «47.19 0.00
30 10/Poly = 0.00 12.78 0.21 30 6Cot = 0.00 «63.57 0.00
31. 11Poly = 0.00 10.21—(0.00 31 WPoly = 001. 39.86 0.00
32. 12Poly = «0.00 s17.04 0.17 32 8Poly 0.00 23.19 0.00
33 9/Poly 0.00 988 0.00 33 9/Poly 001 41.78 0.00
34 10/Poly 0.14 9.16 0.03 34 10/Poly 0.04 42.12 0.00
35. 11/Poly «0.00 10.01._—«0.00 35. I/Poly 0.01 = 36.90 0.00
36 —-:12Poly «0.00 13.86 0.00 36 «1YPoly «OM 83.61 0.00
37 S/Cot 0.00 1651 031 37 1/Cot O01 43.70 0.00
38 6/Cot 0.25 12.42 0.00 38 Cot 0.02 92.63 0.00
3%” 7/Poly 0.07 10.06 0.00 39 3/Poly O01 0.00
40 8/Poly 0.02 6.59 0.00 40 4/Poly ool 36.03 0.00
41 9/Poly 0.00 9.20 0.06 41 S/Cot 0.02 35.47 0.00
42 10/Poly 0.90 2153 0.23 42 6/Cot 0.08 105.90 0.00
43 11/Poly 0.00 15.56 0.00 43 7/Poly 001 20.99 0,00
44 12/Poly 0,00 12.53 0.00 44 8/Poly 0.02 38.14 0.00
45 -SiCot = «0.001493 0.00 45 9Poly = 0.01. «44.25 0.00
46 GICot ~— «0.00 14.67 0.00 46 © 10/Poly 0.01 += 24.37 0.00
47 7/Poly = 0.00 8.38 0.00 47 11/Poly 0.01 = 3063S 0.00
48 8/Poly __(0.00__—8.66 0.00 48 12/Poly 0.02 37.02 0.00
Average dust 0.05 10.67 0.08 Average dust 0495047 0.03



being used within the grinding mill. The air reservoir was located directly behind the
cleaning booth and hard piped to the air spray manifold located inside the booth.

For this report, only the final two air spray manifolds tested in this research effort
will be presented, identified as air manifold A and B. Over the course of this research,
the manifold was constantly modified and improved during various laboratory and field
tests. In the early stages of development, the manifold was divided into different secti-
ons which significantly increased the cleaning time as each section was manually sequ-
enced. The air spray nozzles were also spaced at greater distances creating areas of ef-
fective and ineffective clothes cleaning, illustrated by the stripes present on the cove-
ralls. With each test, the air spray manifold was further improved and became more ef-
fective at cleaning a worker’s soiled clothing. The final two designs of the air spray ma-
nifold were fabricated from 3.8 cm (J- 1/2 in) schedule 40 steel pipe that was capped at
the base. The air spray manifold was manually actuated by the worker performing the
cleaning process by opening a ball valve located on the top of the manifold. For both
manifold designs, the bottom nozzle was a circular design Jocated 15.2 cm (6-in) from
the floor. This nozzle was used in coordination with a ball-type adjustable fitting so as
to be directed downwards to clean the individual’s work shoes or boots. During a labo-
ratory test, this circular design was shown to be more effective for cleaning at greater
distances which was the case for using this nozzle to clean the individual’s safety boots.
In the first design (manifold A), there were 18 air nozzles spaced on 7.6 cm (3 in) cen-
ters (Figure 2). All of these air nozzles were the circular design, which required an air
volume of 0.0091 m/sec (19.2 ft/min) at 206.8 kPa (30 psi).

3.8 cm Air Line

f 7 Ball Valve

3.8cm
SCH. 40 steel —.]
cr «
es)
ay
eq
cs
Spraying Systems <
Nozzles #AA707-23 | “|| Approx 168 cm
(18 Req'd) — « — 5.08 cm
~—< 4 1]
7.6m a
Centers + «af 2.54 cm
t a
oat
a
15.2 cm es Spraying Systems Co. 14 NPT
From Floor} = Nozzle No.AA707-23
Ot 0.0091 m/sec @ 206.8 kPa
~_

Fig. 2. Manifold A design with 18 air nozzles spaced on 7.6 cm centers.


coveralls and placing them in the post plastic bag. Through this pre and post weighing
procedure the amount of product added to the coverall was determined and the amount
of product removed during the cleaning process was also calculated. This allowed for a
cleaning effectiveness to be calculated for each of the three cleaning methods.

6. References

1. DF. Goldsmith, Silica Exposure and Pulmonary Cancer. Epidemiology and Pulmo-
nary Cancer. Epidemiology of Lung Cancer. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.: 245-298
(1994).

2. M, Ding, C. Fei, X. Shi, B. Yucesoy, Mossman, B; Vallyuathon, V: Diseases caused
by silica: mechanisms of injury and disease development. International Inmunopharma-
cology 2:173-182 (2002).

3. SM. Rappaport, M. Goldberg, P. Susi, RF. Herrick, Excessive Exposure to Silica in
the US Construction Industry. Ann Occup Hyg. 47(2): 111-122 (2003).

4. DL. Maxim, D. Venturin, JN. Allshouse, Respirable Crystalline Silica Exposure As-
sociated with the Installation and Removal of RCF and Conventional Silica — Conta-
ining Refractories in Industrial Furnaces. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology.
29:44-63 (1999).

5. E. Hnizdo, GK. Sluis- Cremer, Silica Exposure, Silicosis, and Lung Cancer: A Mor-
tality Study of South African Gold Miner. Brit Jour Ind Med 48:53-60 (1991).

6. R. Merget, T. Bauer, HU. Kupper, S. Philippou, HP. Bauer, R. Breitstadt, Health Ha-
zards Due To Inhalation of Amorphous Silica. Occup Hyg. 5(3): 231-251 (2001).

7. F. Golbabaei, MA. Barghi, M. Sakhaei, Evaluation of Workers’ Exposure to Total,
Respirable and Silica Dust and the Related Health Symptoms in Senjedak Stone Quarry,
Tran. Industrial Health. 42: 29-33 (2004).

8. International Agency for Research on Cancer. Silica, Some Silicates, Coal Dust, and
Para-aramid Fibrils. Monograph 68. Evaluation of carcinogenic risks to humans.
Lyon, France: International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1997.

9. Mine Safety and Health Administration. Code of Federal Regulations, Title 30, Part
56.5001, Exposure limits for airborne contaminants. July 1, 2003.

10. JE. Bohne Jr, BS. Cohen, Aerosol Resuspension from Fabric: Implications for Per-
sonal Monitoring in the Beryllium Industry. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 46(2):73-79 (1985).

11. M. Chiaradia, B. Gulson, K. MacDonald, Contamination of houses by workers oc-
cupationally exposes in a lead-zinc-copper mine and impact on blood lead concentrati-
ons in the families. Occup Environ Med. 54(2):117-124 (1997).

12. BS. Cohen, R. Positano, Resuspension of dust from work clothing as a source of in-
halation exposure. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 47(5): 255-258 (1986).


4.1, Design modifications

With the final air spray manifold design (B), the flat fan nozzle design extends 7.9 cm
(3-1/8 in) from the supply pipe and could easily be broken off if siruck forcefully. Be-
cause of this, it is recommended that side barriers be installed to protect the air nozzles.
During field testing, 2.54 cm (1 in) wood sheeting was used along both sides of the nozz-
les, providing an effective barrier to minimize the potential for nozzle damage.

The air spray manifold was designed for a person 1.8 m (6 ft) in height. Taller wor-
kers will have to stoop and drop their shoulders to effectively clean their upper body.
When a person is shorter, the top air nozzles can be covered with deflectors to prevent
the air sprays from directly hitting the individual’s face. During the final field test, the
top four nozzles were modified with deflectors attached to the side barriers fabricated
from 10.2 cm (4 in) pipe that was cut in half and then into 5.1 cm (2 in) wide strips.
Latches were attached on both sides of these deflectors so they could be locked in either
the open or closed position, which can be seen in Figure 7.

It should be noted that the air spray manifold can be modified to account for height
characteristics of workers at individual operations. Additional air nozzles couid be ad-
ded for taller workers; likewise, as many deflectors as necessary could be added to ma-
ke the system applicable to the shortest individual working at a particular operation. if
additional air nozzles are added or if an operation anticipates that workers will be using
the clothes cleaning process one after another, a larger air receiver tank size of 0.91 m3
(240 gallons) would be required to provide adequate cleaning time.

SECTION ‘A-A"
cata SNtogOS

Fig. 7. Deflector devices to shield face from air spray nozzles for shorter individuals.


ze test bias. Three runs completed one sequence. The coveralls were laundered after
each sequence and it took three sequences to complete one test. By using this sampling
protocol, each cleaning technique was evaluated in all three run positions after the cove-
ralls were laundered. Obviously after the first run, the coveralls never returned to a
completely clean status until after being laundered.

After field test 1 was completed, another laboratory study was performed in an at-
tempt to completely eliminate the striping effect with the air spray manifold. Air spray
manifold B was designed and field test 2 was performed November 18-19, 2003. The-
re appeared to be no advantage to repeating the vacuuming and air hose tests, so only the
air spray manifold B testing was performed. All of the coveralls used in this test were
evaluated for three runs before being laundered (Table 1).

Table |. Sample sequence of cleaning technique cleaning order to minimize test bias.

Sequence #1 Sequence #2 Sequence #3
Run #1 Vacuuming Air hose Air manifold
Run #2 Air hose Air manifold Vacuuming
Run #3 Air manifold Vacuuming Air hose

2.6. Statistical analysis

A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the amount of dust rema-
ining on the coveralls after cleaning. The main effects were coverall material (cotton vs.
polyester/cotton blend) and the cleaning techniques (vacuum, air hose, and air spray ma-
nifold). When a significant main effect was found for the cleaning technique, a test of
pair wise comparisons for group means was performed to determine which means were
significantly different from each other. Because the sample sizes were unequal, Tukey’s
Studentized Range Test for multiple comparisons was used. Before conducting the
ANOVA, the distributional properties of the dependent variable were evaluated. It was
noted that the distribution contained some outlying observations. Consequently, the
analysis was done using both the untransformed and the log-transformed data. The re-
sults were identical; therefore, only the results for the untransformed data are reported.

An independent samples t-test was used to test for differences in the amount of dust
remaining on the coveralls between air spray manifold design A and B. This subset of
the data showed a deviation from normality; thus the analysis was again performed using
both transformed and untransformed versions of the dependent variable. The conclusi-
on was the same for each analysis. The results for the untransformed variable are repor-
ted. The statistical analysis was conducted using SAS (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC).
Results were considered statistically significant if the p-value of the test was < .05.

3. Results

There were 96 coveralls analyses performed in field test 1 and 48 for field test 2. Figu-
re 5 combines the results from both tests and indicates the amount of product remaining
on the coveralls for each of the three cleaning techniques. Both coverall materials were


2.2. Test instrumentation

Gravimetric dust sampling consisted of a sampling pump, flexible Tygon tubing, the 10-
mm Dorr-Oliver cyclone, and a filter. All dust samples were collected with the 10-mm
cyclone, which classifies the respirable portion of dust. Each gravimetric sampler was
calibrated to a flow rate of 1.7 L/min, the required flow rate established by the MSHA
for the metal/nonmetal mining industry for respirable silica dust sampling. The respi-
rable dust classified by the cyclone was deposited on a 37-mm dust filter cassette, which
were pre- and post-weighed to the nearest 0.001 mg on a microbalance. The two gravi-
metric filters at each sample location were averaged together to provide an average res-
pirable dust concentration for each location.

The instantaneous monitor used at all three sample locations was the MIE Inc. Per-
sonal Data RAM (PDR). This is a real-time aerosol sampler that measures the respirab-
le dust concentration based upon the light scatter of particles drawn through an internal
sensing chamber. The respirable dust levels were recorded on an internal datalogger and
were downloaded to a laptop computer at the end of each sampling period. Since the
clothes cleaning process had such a short cleaning duration, the sample log time was set
to every second and this required the data to be downloaded twice per day (lunch time
and after shift). After the respirable dust traveled through the instrument, it was deposi-
ted on a filter cassette, identical to that used with the gravimetric sampler. A new filter
cassette was used for each sampling period. The average gravimetric dust value was then
divided by the PDR value to determine a correction factor. This value was then multip-
lied by all the individual measurements taken with the PDR device, which was then used
to calculate the various average respirable dust concentrations during various segments
during testing. Using both types of respirable dust monitoring equipment provided a go-
od profile of the average dust concentrations throughout the sampling period, as well as
variations and changes in respirable dust concentrations during the evaluation of the
three different cleaning techniques.

2.3. Testing setup

There were three dust sampling locations used for this research effort:
* Inside the half-mask respirator of the individual performing clothes cleaning
+ Inside the cleaning booth
* Immediately outside the cleaning booth

The respirable dust exposure of the person performing the clothes cleaning testing
was monitored inside the PPE (half-mask respirator) for all field studies. In the early
stages of this research, a full-face shield helmet type powered air purifying respirator
(PAPR) was used as the personal protective device (3M Positive Pressure Headgear L-
700 series). A number of shortcomings were identified during this testing with the
PAPR device. The most significant shortcoming was the dust laden air from within the


After field test 1 which evaluated air spray manifold A, there continued to be some
minor striping on the coveralls and another laboratory study was performed in an effort
to completely eliminate this effect. Based upon the results of this testing, spray mani-
fold B was designed which was composed of 27 spray nozzles spaced at 5.1 cm (2 in)
apart, Figure 3, The bottom nozzle continued to be the circular design but the other 26
nozzles were flat-fan type sprays. During laboratory testing, these flat fan nozzles were
shown to be more effective at the close cleaning distances that were found to be used du-
ring field testing. These 27 nozzles delivered slightly less than 0.24 m/sec (500 ft/min)
of air.

Since the air reservoir holds 54.9 m’ (180 ft’) of air at 1034.2 kPa (150 psi), the tank
would be depleted in approximately 22 seconds. There would be a recharge time befo-
re the next individual could perform this clothes cleaning process which would be de-
pendant on a company’s air compressor capacity.

3.8 cm Air Line

3.8.cm
SCH. 40 steel ——]
= 7.94 cm —
27 Nozzles ra] Tt
required 1 4.76 cm
Spraying Systems Co. 4 NPT:

Approx 168.0M | Nozzle No.AA727-23

Nozzles #AA727-23-< 0.0087 m/sec @ 206.8 kPa

(26 Req'd)
enters}
t
15.2.cm
From Floor — L * Spraying Systems Co.
Nozzle #AATOT23E Nozzle No.AA707-23
(1 Req'd) — a 0.0091 m’/sec @ 206.8 kPa

Fig, 3. Manifold B design with 27 air nozzles spaced on 5.1 cm centers.

It is critical that the cleaning booth be ventilated under negative pressure at all ti-
mes so as to not allow any dust liberated during the clothes cleaning process to escape
from the booth. During the research performed at the field test site, the plant had excess
baghouse capacity that was used for the cleaning booth and far exceeded the require-
ments for this application, An exhaust air volume of 2.08 m’/sec (4,400 ft’/min) with a
negative static pressure of 0.41 cm (0.16 in) H,;O was consistently measured in the cle-
aning booth during this testing, which was more than sufficient to keep the booth under
negative pressure during the air spray manifold cleaning process.


4.2. Cost

A primary concern regarding any type of new technology is the cost of implementation.
The following is an approximate cost for the various components necessary for the clot-
hes cleaning process: cleaning booth: ~ $1500- $2000; air nozzles for spray manifold:
~ $400; 0.45 m3 (120-gallon) air reservoir tank: ~ $600, or 0.91 m3 (240-gallon) air re-
servoir tank ~ $850; 3.8 cm (1_ in) regulator: ~$150; Fittings/pipe/misc. supplies:
~$200. The cost of the unit should be in the $2,800 to $3,400 range, excluding the cost
for the exhaust volume of air and duct work cost. At the field test site, an excess exha-
ust volume was available and used for this system. Most operations will not have this
luxury and this detail will have to be built into the cost.

One modification that is being considered for operations without excess baghouse
capacity is to utilize an exhaust fan to blow the dust-laden air up a stack to the outside
of the facility. Since the amount of dust removed from a worker’s clothing will be rela-
tively minor in relation to the amount of air necessary to place the booth under negative
pressure, the respirable dust concentration of air coming out of this stack most likely wo-
uld be insignificant. Additional testing is being planned to verily if this is a viable alter-
native,

5. Conclusion

In an effort to further reduce dust and silica exposure to workers at mineral processing
operations, a clothes cleaning process was recently developed. This process has been
demonstrated to be a much more effective method to remove dust from a worker’s clot-
hing than methods currently used by workers. This process uses a compressed air nozz-
le manifold to blow dust from the worker’s clothing in an enclosed booth. The booth
confines the dust which is then captured by a baghouse dust collector. The clothes cle-
aning technique developed under this research effort was by far the most efficient met-
hod for cleaning soiled work clothing of the three methods tested. Since the air exhaus-
ted by the dust collector causes the booth to be under negative pressure, no dust escapes
to contaminate the work environment or other workers.

The worker performing this cleaning process is required to wear a half-mask fit-tes-
ted respirator with an N100 filter, hearing protection, and full seal goggles. Respirable
dust samples taken inside the respirator of the test personnel performing this clothes cle-
aning process showed minimal to no respirable dust exposure. In more than half of the
48 tests performed on air spray manifold B, the test subjects respira
on remained at 0.00 mg/m? inside the half-mask respirator. In the remainder of the tests,
the value remained very low with an over-all average of 0.02 mg/m3 for the entire test
group.

le dust concentrati-

A matrix of tests were performed during a field analysis at an operating mineral
processing plant which showed that the clothes cleaning process was 40.8 pet. more ef-
fective than using the federally approved method of vacuuming and 50.6 pct. than the


Plexiglass
Sampling Chamber

40-mm
Cyclone

Half-Mask
Respirator

Barbed
Fitting

Dust Filter

Tygon

Fig. 4. Sampling setup to obtain respirable dust measurement inside 1/2-mask respirator.

2.4. Weighing procedures for coveralls

The two most popular types of fabric material coveralls were evaluated in this research
study, (100 pet cotton and a polyester-cotton blend type (65 pct polyester/35 pet cotton)).
The same two test subjects were used in both of the field tests presented in this report.
In addition, each test subject used their own sets of coveralls for the entire series of tests.
A very detailed coverall weighing procedure was performed with the goal of quantifying
the effectiveness of each of the three cleaning methods at removing dust soiled on the
two types of coveralls for both test subjects. This detailed weighing process is explained
in Appendix A. For this process, it was necessary to account for the amount of dust that
was lost when the coveralls were placed in plastic bags during the weighing process and
the amount of dust that was Jost when the test subjects were donning and removing the
coveralls, before and after the cleaning process.

This detailed weighing process also provided the amount of product that was remo-
ved from each type of coverall during the evaluation of the three cleaning methods.

2.5. Test plan

Results from the last two field tests performed in this research effort will be presented in
this report. Test | was performed during April 28 - May 1, 2003 and evaluated all three
cleaning methods. Air spray manifold A with eighteen air nozzles was evaluated in this
first study. Both subjects performed testing using both coverall fabric types for the three
cleaning methods. Table 1 shows the overall test sequence used in an effort to minimi-


REDUCING RESPIRABLE DUST EXPOSURE OF WORKERS
USING AN IMPROVED CLOTHES CLEANING PROCESS

ANDREW B, CECALA!
Pittsburgh Research Laboratory

ANDREW D. O'BRIEN?
Unimin Corporation,

DOUGLAS E. POLLOCK!
Piusburgh Research Laboratory

JEANNE A. ZIMMER!
Pittsburgh Research Laboratory

JOE L, HOWELL
Unimin Corporation,

LINDA J. McWILLIAMS!
Pittsburgh Research Laboratory

A quick, safe, and effective method has been developed that allows workers to clean
their dust laden work clothing periodically throughout the day. For the mining industry,
this technique is much more effective than the current federally approved method of
using a vacuuming system. This newly designed method is relatively inexpensive and
can be easily installed at any operation to allow workers to clean their clothing without
contaminating the worker, the work environment, or co-workers to elevated respirable
dust levels. This clothes cleaning process uses an air spray manifold to blow dust from
a worker’s clothing in an enclosed booth, which confines the dust for capture and remo-
val by a baghouse dust collector. Since the air exhausted by the dust collector causes
the booth to be under negative pressure, no measurable quantities of dust were ever me-
asured escaping from the booth to contaminate the work environment and/or other wor-
kers, The worker performing the cleaning process is required to wear a haif-mask fit-
tested respirator with an N100 filter, hearing protection, and full seal goggles. Dust
samples taken inside the respirator of test personnel performing the clothes cleaning
process showed very minimal to no respirable dust. This clothes cleaning process was
performed in less than 20 seconds and was significantly cleaner than either the federally
approved method of vacuuming, or the most common method of using a single comp-
ressed air hose. It was also determined during this research that polyester-cotton blend
coveralls clean more effectively than coveralls which are 100 percent cotton. The newly
designed clothes cleaning process has potential application to any industry where wor-
kers’ clothing becomes contaminated with most any type of dust or product.

Key Words: silica, respirable dust, work clothing, clothes cleaning, air spray manifold,
cleaning booth

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. P.O. Box 18070,
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, 15236, United States of America.

2 P.O. Box 768, Winchester, Virginia 22604, United States of America.

3 P.O. Box 26, Marston, North Carolina 28363, United States of America,


feds 2d

Cleaning effectiveness (left to right): un-cleaned coveralls, vacuuming. air hose

Fig. 6. Con't. Cleaning effectiveness (left to right): air spray manifold A, air spray manifold B

Another factor clearly identified in Figure 5 is that the polyester-cotton blend cove-
ralls cleaned more effectively than the 100 pct cotton coveralls for all three cleaning
techniques. No attempt was made to look at the physical or chemical properties of the
two fabrics but obviously the polyester/cotton material provided a much easier release
of the dust particles whether being vacuumed or blown from the fabric using either the
singe air hose or the air spray manifold system. This fabric cleaning factor definitely ne-
eds to be considered when the clothes cleaning process starts to be implemented at work
sites. Obviously, it is far more advantageous to have workers wear coveralls that dust
may not as easily adhere to and that clean more effectively than other types that do not.


analyzed separately for all analyses performed in this report. This graph clearly shows
that the newly designed clothes cleaning process using the air spray manifold was the
most effective technique at removing the dust from both coverall types, followed by the
vacuuming technique. The air hose was the least effective of the techniques for both
types of coveralls.

80

g _ Cotton Polyester blend
2 _
3. 60
Hi
85 |

5 —
$5 40 - —
PE [|
53
2s
£3 20
s
z
3
& °

Aur hose Vacuum Manifold A Manifold B Ai hose Vacmun Manifold A Manifold B

Cleaning Method

Fig. 5. Amount of dust remaining on coveralls from three clothes cleaning techniques
with two coverall types.

The new clothes cleaning process was very efficient because all the worker needed
to do was to slowly spin around in front of the air spray manifold. With the nozzles spa-
ced on 5.1 cm (2 in) centers for manifold B, visually there appeared to be very effective
cleaning for all areas of the worker’s clothing. Two areas that took some special atten-
tion were cleaning the inside of the arms and legs. Once an individual was able to qu-
ickly learn a simple technique to clean these areas, the entire process was very brief and
simple to perform.

This was not the case for the other two techniques. Both the vacuuming and sing-
le compressed air hose techniques were very arduous for the individual performing the
clothes cleaning technique. For vacuuming, the suction hose was manually moved by
the test subject in an attempt to suck the dust from their clothing. The fabric material
was continuously being sucked into the nozzle causing it to stick. The test subjects wo-
uld then pull the nozzle from the clothing and move it to another area, which would aga-
in cause the nozzle to stick. This cycle was repeated until the cleaning task was comp-
leted. The cleaning technique with the single air hose was basically the same process
except that the air nozzle never became attached to the fabric material. Frustration and
fatigue levels were definitely significant factors with both individual’s performing these
two clothes cleaning techniques.

Another factor that impacted both the vacuuming and air hose techniques was the
in-ability of the worker’s to clean the back portions of their legs and back since it is im-
possible to visually determine how effective one is performing the process in these are-
as. Another issue for the vast majority of individuals is that it is physically impossible
to effectively clean these areas. Figure 6 indicates the cleaning effectiveness for the back
of one of the test subjects for all three cleaning techniques. These photos show the limi-
tations to cleaning various areas with the vacuum or single air hose technique, while al-
so indicating the effectiveness with the air spray manifold device.


booth during the cleaning process was being forced into the helmet along the facial se-
al from the air spray manifold. Another problem with the helmet was that the adjustab-
le head liner kept malfunctioning. Numerous replacements were tried but it appeared
that the dust build-up on the ratcheting mechanism of the head liner caused it to mal-
function. Because of the problems being encountered, an evaluation was performed du-
ting a preliminary test to compare respirable dust concentrations in the breathing zone
of the PAPR helmet and the half-mask respirator with N100 filters, which had been fit
tested for both test subjects. During this testing, the half-mask respirator proved to be
superior from a dust standpoint and thus was the only respiratory personal protective
device used for the remainder of the study and presented in this report. In addition, the
half-mask respirator eliminated the other major concerns with the PAPR helmet with
the most significant one being the health issue of multiple wearers using the same hel-
met.

Two different brands of half-mask respirators were used throughout the course of
this research and both types provided very similar levels of performance. Both test
subjects were fit-tested with both brands of half mask respirators using the TSI Porta-
Count Method before any testing was performed. This Portacount method is a direct
measurement using a portable condensation nuclei counter to determine the wearer’s
equivalent fit factor during dynamic moving and breathing exercises that are designed
to stress the respirators seals in order to simulate anticipated work activity.!7 Both
test subjects exceeded the required protection factor level of 100 during this respirator
fit-testing. In addition, fit-testing adaptors were purchased from both respirator manu-
facturers and were used to determine respirable dust levels inside the face piece of the
respirator during field testing of the three clothes cleaning methods. A special samp-
ling chamber was also fabricated of clear plexiglass and used for this testing. Tygon
tubing was connected from the barb fitting on the respirator to this sampling chamber
which was attached to the inside wall of the cleaning booth. A 10-mm Dorr-Oliver
cyclone was located inside this sealed sampling chamber and was then connected to
the PDR, also using Tygon tubing, Figure 4. Since the PDR instrument was being
used in the active sampling mode, a sampling pump was used to draw an air sample
from inside the respirator to the sampling chamber, through the 10-mm cyclone, and
finally into the PDR instrument. This allowed the respirable dust concentration insi-
de the half-mask respirator to be determined and logged on the PDR’s internal data-
logger during testing.

The second dust sampling location was inside the clothes cleaning booth. A samp-
le rack was attached to the inside wall of the booth and was composed of two gravimet-
ric sampling units and a PDR instantaneous dust sampling instrument.

The third dust sampling location was immediately outside the clothes cleaning bo-
oth and provided information as to any leakage or contamination from the booth to the
outside mill. The outside sample location used the identical test setup as the inside bo-
oth location.


13. CL. Fogh, MA.Byrne, KG. Andersson, KF. Bell, J. Roed, AJH. Goddard, DV. Voll-
mair, SAM. Hotchkiss, Quantitative Measurement of Aerosol Deposition on Skin, Ha-
ir, and Clothing for Dosimetric Assessment — Final Report. RisO-r-1075(en) RisO Na-
tional Laboratory, Roskilde. 57 pp (1999).

14. AB. Cecala, ED. Thimons, /mpact of Background Sources on Dust Exposure of Bag
Machine Operator. Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9089. 1Opp (1986). Library
of Congress: 1 28.27.9089.

1S. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. Protect Your Family. Redu-
ce Contamination at Home. A Summary of a Study Conducted by the National Institue
for Occupational Safety and Health. DHHS/PUB/NIOSH 97-125. 17pp (1997).

16. J. Chan, M. Sim, R. Golce, A. Forbes, Predictors of lead absorption in children of
lead workers. Occup Med. 50(6): 398-405 (2000).

17. JC. Rose, RK. Oestenstad, VE. Rose, A Comparison of Respirator Fit Factors
Determined by Portable Condensation Nuclei Counting and Forward Light-Scattering.
Appl. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 5:792-797; 1990.


te that provided an intake for the ventilation airflow. This grate was 26.7 cm (10 1/2-in)
high and ran the entire width of the enclosure. A return air plenum Jocated on the very
bottom-back wall of the booth was ducted to the baghouse dust collector system. Figu-
re 1 indicates the specific dimensions for the booth used in this testing and the airflow
pattern with the ventilating air coming in at the top front and exiting at the bottom back.

Exhaust To
Baghouse

KEY
<= Ajr Inlet
==> Exhaust Air

~— Duct

Air Inlet 1 30.5 cm x 30.5 cm

27cm x 112 cm

Window
28 cm x 38 cm

239

Door ——]
71cm x 197 cm

Exhaust Air Plenum
20 cm x 122 cm

Fig. 1, Dimensions and airflow pattern for booth used for clothes cleaning process.

The second major component to this system was the air reservoir, which was neces-
sary to supply the required air volume to the air nozzles used in the spray manifold. The
size requirement for the air reservoir was calculated based upon the design of air spray
manifold A with 18 air nozzles. To supply compressed air to these nozzles, a 0.45 m‘
(120-gallon) air reservoir tank was necessary, This reservoir tank held 38.1, 54.9, 71.3
m’ (125, 180, and 234 ft’) of air at pressures of 689.5, 1034.2, 1379.0 kPa (100, 150, and
200 psi), respectively. This reservoir was pressurized by an existing compressor at the
field test site grinding mill that was in-place to supply compressed air to a number of dif-
ferent mill applications. This air reservoir was typically pressurized to the 1034.2 kPa
(150 psi) level but this could vary somewhat based upon what other applications were


When considering the increase in respirable dust levels when manifold B is compa-
red to manifold A. Since manifold B has 27 air nozzles compared to 18 for manifold A,
the dust will be blown from the coveralls much faster, increasing airborne respirable dust
levels. Dust levels will be higher but the total cleaning duration is shorter.

Last, probably the most important area is the respirable dust levels inside the half-
mask respirator of the test subjects. For the vacuuming system, respirable dust levels re-
mained at zero for all test sequences. Except for four sequences with the air hose, levels
also remained at zero. With the air spray manifold systems, over half of all test sequen-
ces also remained at zero respirable dust. The highest average respirable dust level re-
corded for the 96 sequences was 0.52 mg/m, although this was obviously not typical
since the average for all sequences was 0.03 and 0.02 mg/m for manifold A and B, res-
pectively. Again, it must be remembered that this is for an extremely short duration.
Since the instantaneous PDR dust monitors were recording respirable dust concentrati-
ons every second, the extent of the dust cloud from the air spray manifold cleaning pro-
cess within the booth usually lasted for less than 30 seconds. Based upon ire recorded
respirable dust concentrations measured inside the respirator and the length of this expo-
sure, the results indicate the level of safety provided to the individual performing the
clothes cleaning process with the newly developed system. In addition, there were very
comparable results for both test subjects during all aspects of this testing.

A stop watch was used to record the cleaning time for each cleaning technique.
Table 3 shows the average cleaning time for the three cleaning techniques evaluated in
this study. Cleaning times are presented for both manifold A & B since the time was re-
duced with the additional air spray nozzles of manifold B. Times are also presented se-
parately for the two coverall types because there were some minor differences between
the two. This occurred because the cotton coveralls were not cleaned as easily and the
test subjects spent more time in the cleaning process. Obviously, the test subjects ma-
nually performed the cleaning process using both the vacuuming and air hose techniqu-
es and the actual cleaning time was dependent on such factors as the individual’s ener-
gy level, cleaning quickness, flexibility, size, fatigue, and their perceived level of cle-
aning. For the air spray manifold device, the test subject's ability to vary the cleaning
time was limited because all the subject had to do was to spin around in front of the air
spray manifold. The air spray manifold was by far the quickest method available for cle-
aning the work clothes.

Table 3. Average cleaning time and ra

ge for three clothes Cleaning techniques.

Cleaning Time, (seconds)

Cotton Polyester Blend
Technique Average Time Range Average Time Range
Vacuum 393 358-427 349 302-393
Air Hose 183 160-199 173 149-192
Manifold A 25 21-28 27 24-29

Manifold B 7 16-18 16 15-17



In summary, significant differences were determined for the clothes cleaning pro-
cess using the air spray manifold when compared to either vacuum or air hose techniqu-
es. In addition, a statistically significant difference was found when comparing the amo-
unt of dust removed by manifold B versus manifold A. Lastly, the polyester/cotton
blend type coveralls across all cleaning techniques were significantly cleaner than the
100 pet cotton type.

4. Discussion

It must be noted that the dust sampling location inside the half-mask respirator does not
meet MSHA’s compliance dust sampling regulations, in which the dust sample would
be located on the individual’s lapel. Because of this, when a compliance dust sample
would be taken, the air spray manifold with the numerous air nozzles blowing dust from
the workers clothing increases respirable dust levels in the cleaning booth and this wo-
uld cause the worker’s lapel dust sample to also increase. This increase would be pro-
portional to the time and magnitude of the dust concentration inside the cleaning booth
during the clothes cleaning process. Even with this increase, it is still far more advanta-
geous to perform the clothes cleaning process using the air spray manifold than to allow
the individual to continue to work with contaminated work clothing. Contaminated
work clothing is a constant source of respirable dust to the worker throughout the work-
day. To create a short duration of increased worker respirable dust exposure during the
clothes cleaning process is still much more advantageous than allowing the worker to be
continually exposed from contaminated work clothes. For this testing, the respirable
dust concentration inside the booth would represent the worker’s exposure during the
clothes cleaning process. Since this clothes cleaning process averaged approximately 18
seconds with air spray manifold B, the exposure would be for a very short duration. In
terms of true exposure to the worker, since the worker is required to wear a fit-tested half
mask respirator, very minimal exposure levels were recorded even during the actual cle-
aning process.

Another factor identified during testing was that the coveralls should only be cle-
aned a limited number of times before being laundered. The clothes cleaning process
needs to be viewed as an interim method to be used during the workday and not as a rep-
lacement for laundering. This was most evident for coveralls with zippers, which beca-
me more difficult to use after being soiled a number of times. It should be noted though
that the level of soiling for this testing was at a worst case scenario level and coveralls
would rarely, if ever be soiled to this degree in an actual work situation.

During one of the field studies performed in this research effort, a dosimeter was
used to determine sound level measurements associated with this clothes cleaning pro-
cess. Since this installation was in a grinding mill, background sound levels were me-
asured to be around 91 dB. Sound levels inside the booth were approximately 87 dB wit-
hout the air spray manifold in use and 101 dB when used. Because of these sound le-
vels, hearing protection was required at this operation for anyone performing the clothes
cleaning process.


day for the United States mining industry. The first is a mining regulation established
by the Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) in 30 CFR Part 56.13020 which
states: “At no time shall compressed air be directed toward a person. When compressed
air is used, all necessary precautions shall be taken to protect persons from injury.” A
second regulation is a general industry standard established by the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration (OSHA) in 29 CFR 1910.242(b), stating that: “Compressed
air shall not be used for cleaning purposes except where reduced to less than 206.8 kPa
(30 psi) and then only with effective chip guard and personal protective equipment.” Be-
cause of this, the only current federally approved method to perform clothes cleaning for
the U.S. mining industry is to use a HEPA-filter vacuuming system. To perform this
technique, a worker uses the vacuum hose and manually moves the nozzle over his/her
soiled clothing in an attempt to remove the contamination. This is a very difficult and
time consuming task to perform. In addition, it is nearly impossible to effectively clean
one’s back without additional help from a co-worker. Because of this, few workers ac-
tually use this technique and prefer to use a single compressed air hose to blow dust from
their work clothing, even though this a prohibited method of cleaning. Normally this is
performed at pressures higher than 206.8 kPa (30 psi) in the open work area which not
only exposes the worker, but also creates a significant dust cloud in the work environ-
ment, ultimately exposing co-workers. The goal of this research was to develop a safe,
effective, and economical method for removing dust from work clothing. This research
ultimately led to the design of the clothes cleaning process.

2. Methods

This section of the manuscript will be sub-divided into different areas to describe the
work performed in this research effort. The first part describes the engineering design
and equipment necessary for the newly developed clothes cleaning process. This is fol-
lowed by the instrumentation and test setup used to evaluate the effectiveness of three
cleaning techniques evaluated in this research effort, being: 1) the MSHA approved met-
hod of using a HEPA vacuuming system, 2) the most popular but prohibited method of
using a single handheld compressed air nozzle, and 3) the newly developed clothes cle-
aning process using an air spray manifold in a cleaning booth. The next part details the
weighing procedure used to evaluate and compare the cleaning effectiveness of the three
cleaning methods. The last area describes the test plan and statistical methods used to
analyze the results of testing in this research study.

2.1. Clothes cleaning system design

The clothes cleaning system consists of four major components: a cleaning booth, an air
reservoir, an air spray manifold, and an exhaust ventilation system, The cleaning booth
had a base dimension of 121.9 cm (48 in) by 106.7 cm (42 in) and provided the worker
sufficient space to effectively perform any of the three clothes cleaning techniques (va-
cuum, air hose, and air spray manifold). A standard size door was located on the front
that allowed entry and egress from the cleaning booth. Above the door was an open gra-


1. Introduction

Health and safety specialists are constantly investigating new methods and techniques to
lower respirable dust exposures to workers in the mining industry. When mining opera-
tions are processing products containing quartz or silica bearing material, minimizing
workers’ dust exposures is even more critical. The serious health hazard of silica dust
has been known for many decades.'-?7_ The 1997 ruling by the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (JARC) which stated that inhaled crystalline silica from occupati-
onal sources is considered a (group 1) human carcinogen has further emphasized the im-
portance of the silica health hazard.*

The silica health hazard has long been acknowledged by the federal regulatory
agencies in that the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) and the Threshold Limit Value
(TLV) are at much lower levels than for most other types of dusts. The current federal
dust standard for the metal/non-metal mining industry is set at a level of 10 mg of total
dust for the “nuisance” dust standard.? When silica is thought to be present, a respirab-
le dust sample is analyzed using the X-ray diffraction technique to determine the percen-
tage of silica. When more than | pct. silica is determined, a reduced Permissible Expo-
sure Limit (PEL) standard is then implemented, which is based upon a 100 microgram
silica level. Even at this level, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial
Hygienists (ACGIH) and the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NI-
OSH) are recommending that the crystalline silica level be further reduced to 0.05mg/m‘
or 50 micrograms.

Over the past few decades, a substantial amount of engineering technology has be-
en developed to lower respirable dust exposures (silica) to workers at mineral processing
plants. This control technology has addressed a vast array of different approaches and
techniques to address the major dust contamination of equipment and procedures within
these processing plants. Even though many of these dust control techniques have pro-
ven to be successful in lowering dust levels, many workers’ exposures still exceed their
PEL and health and safety specialists are continually investigating new and novel app-
roaches to further reduce respirable dust exposures.

One area of known worker exposure throughout all industries is from contaminated
work clothing.-!3) For the minerals processing industry, a former U.S. Bureau of Mi-
nes report documented a number of workers that experienced a 10-fold increase in dust
exposure over previous levels from an occurrence that significantly soiled the worker’s
clothing.) The respirable dust concentrations at the workers’ lapel after these occur-
rences indicated that their Time Weighted Average (TWA) concentration would exceed
the Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) in two hours or less. As these individuals perfor-
med their work duties, dust was continuously emitted from their clothing and the only
way to eliminate this dust source was to clean or change their work clothing. Contami-
nated work clothing is not only a hazard to the worker themselves, but a number of stu-
dies have also discussed the potential for taking the contaminant home and exposing fa-
mily members !5-!6,

There are two federal regulations that affect the cleaning of clothes during the work


The average corrected respirable dust concentrations recorded by the PDR dust
instruments at the three sample locations for each test sequence are shown in Table 2.
All the odd number tests in this table correspond to testing performed by test subject #1,
the even number tests correspond to those performed by test subject #2. This data sup-
ports a number of different significant areas of this research. One area is the effective-
ness of containing all the dust generated during the clothes cleaning process to inside of
the booth. For all tests, and more specifically for the air spray manifolds tests, the out-
side booth respirable dust concentration remained at, or near zero for the vast majority
of sampling sequences. For those cases when dust was recorded, the dust sampling inst-
rumentation was detecting dust that was believed to be generated in other areas of the
mill and then drawn over the sampling location as it was pulled into the cleaning booth.

The inside booth sample location showed very low dust levels during the vacu-

uming testing, moderate levels during the air hose testing, and higher respirable dust le-
vels during the air spray manifold testing. These results coincide exactly with what wo-

uld be expected. These expected values even hold true

Table 2. Average corrected respirable dust Jevels at three sample locations.

* Denotes sample taken inside Personal Protective Device (1/2-mask respirator)

Vacuum Air Hose

Outside Inside Inside Outside Inside Inside

Coverall# Booth, Booth, PPD* Coverall# Booth, Booth, PPD*

Test# Type mg/m? mg/m mg/m} Test# Type mg/m? mg/m} mg/m?
1 1/Cot 0.00 0.00 0.00 | S/Cot 0.00 0.01 0.00
2 2/Cot 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 6/Cot 0.00 0.01 0.00
3 3/Poly 0.00 0,00 0.00 3 7/Poly 0.00 0.01 0.00
4 4/Poly 0.00 0.00 0.00 4 8/Poly 0.00 0.01 0.00
5 S/Cot 0.00 0.00 0.00 a S/Cot 0.00 0.42 0.00
6 6/Cot 0.00 0.00 0.00 6 6/Cot 0.00 0.88 0.00
7 7/Poly 0.00 0.01 0.00 7 7/Poly 0.00 0.27 0.00
8 8/Poly 0.00 0.00 0.00 8 8/Poly 0.00 1.02 0.00
9 W/Cot 0.00 0.02 0.00 c) 1/Cot 0.01 0.50 0.00
10 2/Cot 0.03 0.04 0.00 10 2/Cot 0.01 1.92 0.00
i 3/Poly 0.05 0.04 0.00 I 3/Poly 0.04 0.69 1.43
12 4/Poly 0.03 0.04 0.00 12 4/Poly 0.01 1.08 0.19
13 W/Cot 0.0! 0,00 0.00 13 1/Cot 0.00 0.24 0.00
I4 2/Cot 0.00 0.00 0.00 14 2/Cot 0.01 0.70 0.00
1S 3/Poly 0.02 0.01 0.00 1S 3/Poly 0.02 0.46 0.00

16 4/Poly 0.00 0.00 0,00 16 4/Poly 0.03 0.38 0.00 |
17 S/Cot 0.00 0.00 0.00 17 S/Cot 0.00 1.09 0.00
18 6/Cot 0.00 0.01 0.00 18 6/Cot 1.00 1.19 0.00
19 7/Poly 0.00 0.01 0.00 19 7/Poly 0.00 1,32 0.00
20 8/Poly 0.00 0.00 0.00 20 8/Poly 0.00 0.86 0.00
21 S/Cot 0.00 0.01 0.00 21 S/Cot 0.00 1.54 0.00
22 6/Cot 0.00 0.00 0.00 22 6/Cot 0.10 2.12 0.00
23 7/Poly 0.00 0.00 0.00 23 7/Poly 0.00 0.58 0.00
24 8/Poly 0.62 0.03 0.00 24 8/Poly 0.00 0.49 0.00
Average dust 0.03 0.01 0.00 Average dust 0.05 0.74 0.07 |



3.1. Statistical data analysis

The data collected during the two field tests were statistically analyzed to determine the
effectiveness of the three clothes cleaning techniques and also to compare the coverall
fabric materials. The amount of dust remaining on the coveralls after cleaning was
analyzed with a 2 X 3 ANOVA, with coverall material and cleaning process as the inde-
pendent variables. Summary statistics are presented in Table 4. The results of the ANO-
VA are shown in Table 5. The main effect for coverall material and the main effect for
cleaning process were both statistically significant; the interaction effect was not. It was
found that the polyester/cotton fabric material cleaned more effectively, or held less dust
after cleaning than the pure cotton material. Subsequent to the ANOVA, Tukey’s test
was used to make all comparisons between the means of the different cleaning proces-
ses. Significant differences were found between the air spray manifold and air hose, and
between the air spray manifold and vacuum. No difference was found when the air ho-
se and vacuum processes were compared.

Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations for dust remaining on coveralls (grams) by material

and cleaning process for Test |.

Material Process n Mean sD
Cotton Airhose 12 68.78 28.09
Cotton Manifold A 12 46.24 12.33
Cotton Vacuum 12 63.11 14.86
Polyester Airhose 12 48.41 17.67
Polyester Manifold A 36 36.17 12.04
Polyester Vacuum 12 45.49 8.85

Table 5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for amount of dust remaining on coveralls (grams)
after cleaning for Test 1.

Source df Sum of squares Mean square F p-value
Material | 5199.91 5199.9] 21.13 <.0001
Process 2 5000.71 2500.36 10.16 0001
Material X Process 2 432.22 216.11 0.88 ns
Error 90 22148.67 246.10

Because the manifold was significantly modified between the first and second field
tests, the two different air spray manifold designs (A & B) were compared using a t-test.
The cleaning effectiveness of air spray manifold B was significantly higher when com-
pared to air spray manifold A. These results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6. Means, Standard Deviations, and t-value for amount of dust remaining
‘on coveralls (grams) with Manifold A and B.

Manifold N Mean SD t p-value
A 48 38.69 12.77

3.50 0007
B 48 29.69 12.40