PERFORMANCEOF A LIGHTSCATTERINGDUSTMONITOR

AT VARIOUSAIRVELOCITIES: RESULTSOF SAMPLINGIN

THE ACTIVEVERSUSTHEPASSIVEMODE

JEFFREY M. LISTAK

GREGORY J. CHEKAN

JAY F. COLINET

JAMES P. RIDER

The Respiratory Hazards Control Branch of NIOSH routinely conducts laboratory and

mine-site evaluations of dust control technologies. Gravimetric and instantaneous dust'

sampling instruments are used in these evaluations to measure and document dust le-

- vels to determine worker exposure. The Thermo personal DataRam (pDR) is an instantaneous sampler that uses light-scattering technology to provide relative, measures of

airborne respirable dust. The pDR can be used in active and passive mod~ to measure respirable dust levels. Tests were conducted to evaluate the sampling' performance

of active and passive pDR operation relative to each other and. against a gravimetric

sampler (the accepted standard for respirable dust measurement). The purpose of the

test was to determine if the pDR can be used effectively in the passive mode in higher'

velocity airflows (up to 5.1 mls (1000 fpm». Studies of the pDRs in both modes of

operation were conducted in a controlled laboratory environment and in field situations.

Dust measurements using pDR units in both modes of operation were recorded in velocities ranging from 1.0 to 5.1 mls (200 to 1000 fpm). Tests were conducted in ambient air and in air with the addition of moisture. Results show that, although the units

measure different concentrations in their respective modes of operation as compared to

a gravimetric sample, the relative readings can be corrected to yield accurate dust measurements.

1. Introduction

It is not uncommon in many underground coal mines, especially those using longwall mi~

ning methods, to experience airflow velocities of 5.1 mIs (1000 fpm) or higher. Typical

air velocities for room-and-pil1ar mining (the most common method of underground co-
al mining) range from 1.3 ds to 3.0 m/s (250 to 600 fpm). To design effective engineering controls for dust mitigation for each of these mining methods, the source and location of dust concentrations must be determined. For regulatory respirable dust requirements, the standard for respirable dust sampling in coal and metal and non-metal mines 

is the personal respirable-dust sampler. This gravimetric sampling instrument collects 

preclassified respirable dust on a filter, which is then desiccated and weighed to detennine the mass of collected dust. Average dust concentrations are then calculated based 

upon collected mass, sampling flow rate, and operating time. Gravimetric methods of 

dust measurement provide levels of worker exposure to dust over the course of an entire 

working shift, however, this method cannot show the variations in dust levels over the 

course of that shift or what activities may cause higher levels of dust during the shift. Not 

all activities during a working shift produce the same amounts of dust. Determining the 

activities that cause higher dust levels can benefit researchers seeking engineering control measures to combat respirable dust. A real-time dust monitor is capable of showing 

dust level variation. The advantage of real-time respirable dust sampling instruments is 

their ability to monitor short term variations in dust levels and to detennine dust trends 

during activities that generate dust. To better evaluate and subsequently reduce worker 

dust exposure, it is beneficial to determine when dust levels are high or peak during certain work activities. Different mining methods may have several dust producing sources, 

and it is, from a research perspective, advantageous to isolate and identify the activities 

that are producing the dust. The personal DataRAM (pDR) (Thenno Electron Corp) is 

currently used in'a number of research studies to isolate mine dust sources. Bellel showed that three different pDR units operated under similar conditions differ significantly 

in measured concentrations. Therefore, while not accurate enough for regulatory compliance sampling, these monitors are excellent for showing relative patterns and trends of 

high or peak dust levels during worker activities. These instruments are robust and suited for harsh mine environments. The instrument has two modes of operation, passive 

and active, depending on ambient sampling conditions. A previous mine study shows 

that for determining relative real-time concentrations of dust from an operation or piece 

of equipment during a shift, the pDR in the active mode and an accompanying gravimetric sampler can be related using a ratio of the gravimetric concentration and the average 

pDR concentrationz. After using this instrument in numerous studies, there appeared to 

be similarities in dust measurements between using the units in the active and the passive modes. For logistical purposes, the passive units are more desirable for research efforts. Eliminating the need for a pump, cyclone, seals, and filter on each unit makes the 

instrument much more efficient for use in field studies. Therefore, a study was conducted in a controlled environment to determine how the units, in both passive and active 

modes, measure a controlled infusion of dust into a wind tunnel at air velocities of 1.0, 

2.0,3 .O, 4.1, and 5.1 m/s (200,400,600,800, and 1000 fprn). The lab results were then 

compared to active and passive units that were used in field studies. 

2. Background 

The evolution of the RAM-1 (Realtime Aerosol Monitor 1, MIE Inc.) to the personal DataRam (pDR) has made it possible to conveniently collect personal dust samples in real 
time. The pDR is a photometer or nephelometer. A nephelometer is an instrument for 

measuring suspended particulates in a liquid or gas. It does so by using a pulsed, high 

output, near-infrared light emitting diode source, a silicon detectorhybrid preamplifier, 

and collimating optics and a source reference feedback PIN silicon detector. The intensity of the light scattered over the forward angle of 50 to 90" by airborne particles passing through the sensing chamber is linearly proportional to their concentration. This 

optical configuration produces optimal response to particles in the size range of 0.1 to 

10 pm. The unit has a concentration measurement range of 0.001 to 400 mgIm3. Particle measurement is a function of the light reflected into the detector from the particles. 

Two modes of operation of the pDR are offered by the manufacturer, passive and 

active. According to the manufacturer, for the usual nearly quiescent intramural monitoring applications, and if no pre-selection of particles is desired, there is essentially no 

difference between the air sample sensed by an active monitor and that sensed by a passive one. However, they go on to say that outdoor monitoring generally requires active 

sampling, in combination with an appropriate inlet configuration in order to prevent 

wind induced particle size discrimination effects3. A study by Willeke and Degarmo 

concluded that air velocity may affect the aerosol sampling and transport efficiencies so 

that the active sampling may differ from passive sampling". Consequently, passive units 

are recommended by the manufacturer for use in stagnant or near stagnant ambient conditions whereas active units are used in windy conditions or conditions that warrant high 

velocity air (e.g., ventilation systems in underground mines). 

Both the passive, pDR-1000AN and the active, pDR-1200 are aerosol photometers. 

The only difference between the two units it that the active unit requires a vacuum pump, 

a cyclone, a filter, and active sampling seal plates. In the passive mode, the unit uses the 

natural movement of the ambient air to enter the chamber for measurement. The active 

mode uses a pump to draw the aerosol through a fixed flow inlet (cyclone) into the chamber to prevent wind-induced particle size discrimination effects. An inline filter is also - 

used in the active mode to collect the dust after it has passed through the light scattering 

chamber. However, when using pDRs in the active mode, tbe seals on the units must be 

tight so that the cyclone is not by-passed by air being drawn into the dust chamber though leaks. Maintaining effective seals is difficult on active units;?. When using multiple units in the field, the active units are more cumbersome than passive ones because of 

the need for pumps, cyclones, seals, and frlters. 

Several studies have been conducted to evaluate the performance of the pDR under different conditions and modes of operation. Chakrabarti et al? found that the pDR 

in an active mode is more accurate than in the passive mode when sampling outdoor particulate matter. A study by Willeke3 using the MIE Midiram, a predecessor to the pDR, 

was conducted in a passive and an active mode using different pump flow rates to evaluate the transport of aerosols to the sensing chamber. The results showed that the instrument needs to be calibrated against a gravimetric sample for the specific dust used at 

a specific flow configuration. Lui et al.6 compared the pDR in passive mode against gravirnehic sampling devices in short-term monitoring of particulate in residences and found that the pDR overestimated dust levels by 27%. However, these studies were conducted in ambient outdoor or indoor air conditions. The unit has not been tested in both 

modes for accuracy in a variety of air velocities or in high velocity airflows (up to 5.1 

m/s (1000 fpm)). 
3. Test Methods 

3.1 Laboratory test uppara& 

The laboratory tests were conducted at the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory of the National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH). A wind tunnel, equipped 

with a variable speed fan and a vibrating dust feeder, was constructed for the tests. The 

dimensions of the tunnel were 0.6 x 1.2 m (2 x 4 ft), providing an area of 0.7 mz (8 W). 

The length of the wind tunnel was 12.2 m (40 ft) with a 1.5 m (5 ft) long evase at the 

open end to reduce head loss and turbulence as air entered the tunnel. Air velocity was 

controlled with a 29.7 kw (40 hp) Joy axial vane fan capable of producing air velocities 

in the tunnel in excess of 10.2 m/s (2000 fpm). This variable speed fan provided a means to adjust air velocity in the tunnel to test dust measurements at various velocities. 

The fan is positioned behind the dust insertion point and the dust sampling location, making it an exhausting ventilating system. Velocity profiles for each of the test velocities were established using fixed-point traversing over a cross-section (16 quadrants) of 

the wind tunnel at the sampling point. After each profile, the fan speed was set and additional tests were conducted to ensure repeatability. 

Dust was introduced into the tunnel by means of an injection nozzle that was connected to a screw feeder (Vibra Screw Model SCR-20) and a compressed air-eductor 

(Penberthy Model LH Eductor). The vibratory dust feeder fed at a constant mass flow 

rate for all velocities tested. The dust feed was measured at 16.1 g/min (.57 ozlmin) with 

an air pressure through the eductor of 206.8 kPa (30 psi). The dust feed was introduced 

into the tunnel'at the mouth of the evase. The sampling location is located at a distance 

of 10.7 m (35 ft) from the dust feed, which allowed for adequate dispersion anb mixing 

of dust. The test apparatus is shown in Figure 1. 

To Pump To Pum 

P~~ WR \? p~~7> 

_ .__ - - -.- _.__ .-... --- . - 

Enlamed Detail 

Fig. I. Dust sampling wind tunnel. 
The pDR units were located in the wind tunnel with a gravimetric sampler for sideby-side comparisons. Both active and passive mode pDRs were positioned on either side of the gravimetric sampling unit as shown in Figure 1. The samplers were positioned 

as close as physically possible along the centerline of the wind tunnel where dust concentration gradients were minimal, as determined from a previous study'. The gravimetric sampler consisted of a Don-Oliver cyclone, a 37 mm filter, and a pump. The active 

pDR unit used a Dorr-Oliver cyclone and pump. The pumps were operated at 2 Ymin. 

The pDR unit operating in the passive mode did not require a pump, cyclone, or filter. 

It is important to note that there is an accuracy bias between these instruments. 

That is, two instruments located side-by-side recording a known quantity of dust in the 

same mode of operation will not yield identical dust levels, nor will they accurately record the known quantity of dust. For the purposes of evaluation, the same two active 

and passive units were used in their respective modes for each laboratory test. Similarly, 

during field evaluations, the same two units were always located at the same sampling 

point on each day of testing. 

3.2 Sampling Methods 

The comparison tests were made at five different air velocities 1 .O, 2.0,3.0,4.1, and 5.1 

rn/s (200,400,600, 800, 1000 fpm). The pDR units were set to measure dust at 5 second intervals for a duration of 15 minutes. The two units were initialized to simultaneously record dust concentrations at each of the 5 velocities. ' Six tests were conducted at 

each velocity for a total of thnty tests. Zeroing of the 'pDR units was performed after 

every test according to manufacturer's specification using the zeroing bag. For calibration purposes, a gravimetric sampler is used with the pDR during each dust sampling 

sufley, and then the pDR is calibrated against the gravimetric measurement to anive at 

dust concentrations for the unit. The authors feel this is a more accurate way to sample 

with the pDR because it takes into consideration that the dust cloud may not be consistent from test to test or from survey to survey. 

The coal dust used for sampling, Keystone Mineral Black 325BA, is commercially 

available and manufactured by Keystone Filler and Manufacturing Company. The material is finely crushed bituminous coal. The physical properties of this material are consistent, having a maximum particle size of 50 microns, 65% of which is <10 microns, 

and a moisture content of <I%. The dust passes from the screw feeder into a compressed air-eductor which causes particle separation and allows for dispersion of the material into the air stream. 

Gravimetric dust samples were collected on 37 mm PVC (polyvinyl chloride) filters located in a 10-mm Dorr-Oliver cyclone (Mine Safety Appliances, Pittsburgh, PA). 

The filter and cyclone assembly use a vacuum pump (Model Escort Elf, Mine Safety 

Appliances, Pittsburgh, PA) operated at 2 l/m for collection of dust on the filters. Gravimetric analysis of the filters was performed on a Mettler-Toledo microbalance (precision, 5 pg) (Model UMT2, Mettler-Toledo, Columbus, OH). Weighing was conducted 

in the NIOSH weighing lab at the Pittsburgh Research Laboratory (PRL) at 22.7 & .4 deg 

C (73 * 0.7 deg F) and 53 * 2 % relative humidity (RH). Pre-weighing procedures employ ambient equilibration and control filters. Post-weighing procedures employ desiccation, equilibration, and control filter correction. 
In rsrder to minimize turbulence to obtain accurate air velocity measurements, it is 

recommended that readings be taken at least 10 duct diameters downwind of changes in 

the ductwork The dust sampling 'and air monitoring station was approximately 13 duct 

diameters away from the evase and dust injection point. Fine water droplets and 

humidity have been found to affect dust measurement readings from light-scattering 

samplersa. Although Quintana et al found false high readings above 85% relative humidity (RH), dry air tests were conducted in February and March with a recorded laboratory test RH range between 20 and 40% and temperatures ranging between 21.7 and 23.9 

deg C (7 1 and 75 deg F). To determine the effects of high RH, additional measurements 

were taken in high RH conditions (73 to 84%, conducted in July and August) in which 

atomizing sprays (raising RH to 99%) were introduced into the tunnel to simulate a humid mine atmosphere. 

4. Data Analysis 

Raw data from the units were graphed on the same set of axes to compare each unit's 

measurements and trends in dust levels over the 15-minute tests. These comparisons were made at each velocity to determine how the units behaved in the different modes of 

operation in the different air velocities. Plots of passive vs, active modes show similar 

trends in all of the tested velocities. At 1.0 m/s (200 fpm), the graph of the passive and 

active pDR measurements show that the two units log different dust leveis throughout 

the test. However, as seen in Figure 2A, the signature of each curve has similarities in 

trends as dust levels increase and decrease, even though the.levels are.different. To determine how close these trends are, the ratio of the average of the active to the passive 

0 5.0 10.0 15.0 

TIME. min 

Fig. 2. A-Active and passive dust measurements. Fig. 3. A-Active and passive dust measurements. 

B- Passive related to active after ratio adjustment at B- Passive related to active after ratio adjustment 

1.0 ds (200 fpm) . at 5.1 mls (1000 fpm). 
measurements was calculated. Then, each passive measurement was multiplied by the 

ratio to get an adjusted passive measurement for each sampling interval. This data set 

was then graphed with the original active measurements to evaluate the curves against 

one another. Figure 2B shows the curves at 1.0 rn/s (200 fpm). The graph shows that 

the trends of the units follow closely as dust concentrations increase and decrease. The 

graph also shows that, although average active measurements are higher, the passive unit 

records more exaggerated measurements when the concentrations spike higher or lower. 

However, since the units record relative rather than absolute dust levels, as long as the 

trends are the same, the units are measuring similarly. This pattern is typical of the six 

tests conducted at 1.0 mls (200 fpm) as well as tests conducted at the other velocities. 

Figure 3A and B show this same pattern at 5.1 rnls (1000 fprn). 

5. Tesb in Dry Air 

Table 1 shows the average sampler concentrations of the tests at each velocity for the 

pDRs in passive and active modes along with the gravimetric concentration and the ratio of the active to passive averages and gravimetric sampler ratios. For each sampler, 

the table shows decreasing concentrations as the velocity increases, as can be expected 

due to dilution in the increased quantity of air. The table also shows ratios of the average sampler dust concentration measurements. The ratio of the active to the passive mode ranges from 1.3 to 1.8 over all velocities and a standard deviation of 0.2, with both 

end point velocities having ratios of 1.5. The consistency of the ratio suggests that regardless of the velocity, the manner in which both units record dust measurements can 

be related. When comparing each unit with the gravimetric samplej by ratio, the 'table 

shows an excellent relationship of 0.6 and 0.9 above 1.0 m/s (200 fpm) between the gravimetric and the active and passive pDRs respectively. 

Table 1. Dust Concentrations Averages and Ratio From Sampling Units in Dry Air. 

Average Sampler Conc.efIfrati6n. m$m3 Average Ratio 

. Velocity rnls (fpm) Passive Active Gravimetric Actlpassive Gravlpassive Gravlactive 

Figure 4 shows a graph with a log-log scale of the average concentrations of each 

sampler at each velocity. The pDR in the active mode always records higher measurements than both the passive pDR and the gravimetric sampler. As velocity increases, 

dust levels go down with similar slopes over the range of velocities. 
1 I I 1 1 1 I IKey 

- 

- -90 Active - ......A Passive - 

-..a Grav - I 

- I 

'0% ; 

-a . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - . - - - 

- .*... --.;=-A - 

- - 

- . *b - 

- I - 

- - - I - I 7 - 

I I I I I. I Ill 

5.0 .' 10. 

VELOCITY, m/s 

Fig. 4. Average concentrations of sampling units for all test velocities. 

The passive pDR measures dust concentrations similar to the gravimetric sampler 

at all velocities higher that 1.0 m/d (200 fpm). 

An Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was performed to test the hypothesis of no difference among the ratios across the five velocities. Since the F-statistic establishes that 

there is or is not a difference between group meansg, this test was'employed to detennine if the instruments a+ measuring the same dust levels based on the ratio of the active 

to the passive modes of operation. Based on the assumptions that the measured dust quantities are normally distributed and that the distribution of the variances is the same for 

each instrument, the hypothesis that the instruments are reading the same cannot be rejected at the 95% confidence level. The Shapiro-Wilk test for normalitylo verifies that 

the data do come from a normal distribution, and the Levene test11 was performed to verify that there is no difference among the variances of the ratios within each of the five 

velocities. Ratio means of all five velocities are centrally located about a mean of 1.5. 

An F-ratio of 1.389 and at a si&icance level of 0.266 establishes that there is no significant difference in the means of the ratios for the two instruments over the range of 

all velocities. 

ANOVA was also performed on the ratios that relate each mode of operation to the 

gravirnetric sample taken during each test. Gravimetric to both active and passive ratios were calculated as shown in Table 1. Making the same assumptions as with the active to passive ratio analysis, the analysis relating each unit to the gravimetric sample 

shows again that there is no significant difference in the ratios over the range of velocities at a 95% confidence level. 
6. Tests in Humid Air 

As previously stated, water droplets can affect the ability of the pDRs to measure dust 

particles accurately. Mines use water sprays as means of dust suppression. Therefore, 

tests were conducted with water sprays to further compare the pDRs and to simulate a 

damp or very humid environment. Two atomizing sprays nozzles (Bete Fog Nozzle, No 

P54) were installed at the mouth of the evase approximately 25.4 cm (10 in) above and 

below the dust injection tube (Figure 5). These nozzles, operating at 20.7 kPA (30 psi), 

produce a cone-shaped fog spray with a 90 degree spray angle at a flow of 1.7 Ym (0.46 

gpm). The sampling station inside the wind tunnel had a respective temperature and relative humidity of 21.1" C (69.9" F) and 71.7 % before the addition of the sprays, and 

19.2" C (66.5" F) and 99.5 % after the sprays were activated. 

Fig. 5. Atomizing mist nozzles positioned above and below dust feed. 

Table 2 shows average dust concentrations and ratios when an atomizing mist was introduced into the tunnel along with the dust. Even though the measured concentrations 

have been reduced from the addition of moisture, the ratios are very similar to those from 

the dry dust tests. From these tests, it appears that the added moisture had little effect 

on the relative measurements of the pDR units. 
Table 2. Dust Concentration Averages and Ratios from Sampling 

Units with High Humidity. 

Average Sampler Concentration, mg/m3 Average Ratio 

Velocity ds (fpm) Passive Active Gravimetric Actlpassive Gravlpassive Gravlactive 

I .O (200) 37.7 55 5 28.3 15 0.8 0.5 

2.0 (400) 16.3 29.3 17.9 1.8 1.1 0.6 

3.0 (600) 13.3 17.9 10.8 1.3 0.8 0.6 

4.1 (800) 8.4 14.3 8 1.7 0.9 0.6 

5.1 (1000) 7.5 11.3 6.2 1.5 0.9 0.6 

7. Field Tests 

The pDRs operating in the passive and active modes were evaluated at two different field sites. As with the lab evaluations, the units were positioned side by side during mining activities to record dust. The conditions at each of the mines were very different 

(in the interest of maintaining anonymity, the mines will be designated as Mine A and 

Mine B). Mine A is an underground limestone mine with a low air velocity of approximately 05 m/s (100 fpm) found in the large 12.2 rn x 12.2 m (40 ft x 40 ft ) entries. 

Dust measurement at this mine was conducted over a 3-day period to determine the dust 

generated by haul trucks traversing between the loading and dumping points within the 

mine. Six pDR units were used over the 3-day period at various locations along the truck 

route with an additional pair used on the final day of monitoring. Two units were positioned at the crusher, two at the belt and two in the return air entry. The additional units 

were placed at the dump on the third day. A total of 85 test intervals were collected over 

the 3-day sampling period. The positioning of the units allowed for varied dust levels 

throughout the monitoring period. For instance, average dust measurements (mgJm3) at 

the three monitoring sites during the first day of testing far the passive and active units 

respectively are as follows: crusher 4.8,7.2; belt 2.1, 5.6; return 0.6, 1 .O. This pattern 

was similar for each day of testing and allowed for an evaluation of the units measuring 

in different dust concentrations in the same airspeed. 

Mine B is an underground coal mine utilizing longwall mining methods for coal 

extraction. Measured velocities along the longwall face were approximately 5.1 m/s 

(1000 fpm) and flowed from the headgate entries to the tailgate entries. The crew and 

equipment along the 305 m (1000 ft) longwall face were protected by 165 shields 

(hydraulic roof supports). Dust measurements at this mine were conducted over a 3-day 

period to detennine dust generated by the longwall shearing machine during the headgate to tailgate passes and then from the tailgate to headgate passes. A total of 16 passes 

was sampled over the 3-day period, five the first day, five the second day, and six the 

third day. The pDR units were positioned at two locations along the longwall face, at 

shieId 10 (closest to the headgate entries) and at shield 150 (closest to the tailgate entries). As with the units in Mine A, the dust levels at the two locations varied over the monitoring periods. 

Whereas the gravimetric samplers were measuring dust continuously over the duration of the shift, the pDR units measured intervals during certain activities for shorter 

durations. Therefore, the pDR units at the field sites were not compared to the gravimetric samplers as they were in the lab tests. 
Table 3 shows the ratio of the active to the passive units at the two mine sites for 

each of the 3-day testing periods. Ratios and standard deviations are shown at Mine A 

for the four sampling stations and at the two sampling stations for Mine B. The ratios 

at both mines, while not as consistent as those from the lab study, show that the units read closely in both mine atmospheres over each of the three sampling days for each location that was sampled. The other difference from the laboratory samples is that the active units read consistently lower'concentrations than the passive units at each location 

at each mine site making the active to passive ratios less than 1 in all field measurements. 

This result may be attributed to over sampling in the lab due to the orientation of the 

units to the direction of airflow. 

Table 3. Active to Passive Ratios and Standard Deviations at Mine Sites. 

Mine A Mine B . 

Crusher Belt Return Dump Shield 10 Shield 150 

Day Ratio s.d Ratio s.d. Ratio s.d Ratio s.d Ratio s.d Ratio s.d 

8. Discussion 

Real-time sampling of dust trends is beneficial for research studies. The pDRs measure 

relative rather than absolute dust levels in real time. Although recorded relative dust levels are different between these two units, the trends are the same in all velocities tested. Results of the laboratory study reveal that, given the same two pDRs positioned si- 

! de-by-side in a known concentration of dust and measuring in active and passive modes, 

a calculated ratio of measurements of the active to the passive,unit show that both modes of operation are consistently related in all test velocities. In addition, relating each 

of the units to the gravimetric sample as a ratio showed consistency of dust measurements in each of the test velocities for both modes of operation. This relationship has 

been confirmed before2 with the pDR sampling in the active mode but not in the passive mode and not at different air velocities. Operation of the water sprays during the second series of tests did not impact the ratio between the active and passive samplers. Field measurements also showed consistent ratios when sampling at sites with two velocity extremes (0.5 dsand 5.1 ds (100 fpm and 1000 fpm)). 

Although the active unit measured higher levels of dust in the lab, this was not the 

case for the pDRs that were used in the field measurements. Both field site results show 

that at the lowest and highest velocities, the passive units read higher levels of dust than 

the active units. This result may be attributed to the active unit's cyclone inlet efficiency 

and its orientation to the air stream in the lab tests versus the field. A11 of the test velo: 

cities in the lab were lower than the inlet velocity of the active sampler (approximately 

6.6 m/s (1300 fpm)). Therefore, the active sampler was not sampling isokinetically, i.e. 

the inlet velocity of the cyclone was not equal to the velocity of the air stream being 
sampled. When sampling isoaxially (directly into the air stream) and inlet velocities are 

greater than the air stream being sampled, super-isokinetic sampling occurs and the 

sampler will over sample the aerosoll2. When sampling in the field, the units were consistently perpendicular to the direction of the airflow, to provide greater clearance (protection) between the samplers and mining equipment. When cyclone inlets of sampling 

units are perpendicular to the airflow, under sampling may occur.l3.14 

Another possibility for the differences from lab to field sampling may be the dust 

measured and environmental factors. The characteristics of the dust used and the controlled conditions of the lab varied from the field. The pDR relates dust concentration 

to scattered light inside the sensing chamber. The scattered light is dependent on the 

size, size distribution, shape, density and optical properties of the particles being measured in the chamber. While lab dust material is pure bituminous coal with consistent 

physical properties, field dust samples may contain rock, diesel particulate, moisture, 

and vary in size distribution. These characteristics will elicit a different response from 

the units. A study of the RAM-1, a real-time dust monitor that uses light scattering to 

measure dust, showed the differences in response between coal dust and limestone 

dustls. Results of the study showed that the higher reflective properties of the coal dust 

sampled produced higher dust level readings than the limestone dust. The differences 

in the characteristics of the dust used in the lab and those measured in the field could 

cause the units to respond differently in the lab versus the field. Regardless of which 

unit read higher and regardless of the type of dust being measured, the c6nsistency of 

the ratios between the units shows that there is a relationship in the readings for each 

mode of operation. 

Test data also indicate that operation of the pDRs in either the active or passive 

modes results in dust levels that deviate from dust levels measured with gravimetric 

samplers. Typically, the dust levels obtained with the active sampler were higher than 

the gravimetric results, while the passive samplers were closer to the gravimetric concentration. However, when used with the accompanying gravimetric samplers, dust readings from either the active or the passive samplers could be adjusted to be more representative of the actual dust levels and very similar to each other. Therefore, the authors would recommend that gravimetric samplers be used in all applications in order to 

develop a gravimemc1pDR ratio to adjust the relative pDR readings. Consequently, the 

pDRs can be effectively used to identify major dust sources, trends in dust generation, 

and relative differences in the dust levels resulting from the implementation of control 

technologies. 

References 

1. B. K. Belle, Comparison of Three Side-by-Side Real-Time Dust Monitors in a Duct 

Using Average and Peak Display Dust Levels as Parameters of Performance Evaluation, Proceedings of the 1 lfh U.SJNorth American Mine Ventilation Symposium, eds. 

J. M. Mutmanski and R. V. Ramani, 2006,179- 189. 
2. G. J. Chekan, J. F. Colinet, F. N. kssell, J. P. Rider, R. P. Vinson, and J. C. Volkwe-, 

in, Performance of a Light-Scattering Dust Monitor in Underground Mines, SME 

Preprint no. 05-69, SME Annual Meeting, Feb 28 - Mar 2,2005, Salt Lake City, UT, 

2004,5 p. 

3. MIE Technical Notes, The personalDataRarn, Model pDR-1000: An Information 

Update, 2003, Obtained from Internet htt~://andersoninstruments.corn/MIE/MieWeb02lnotesltn 12.html 

4. K. Willeke and S. J. Deganno, Passive Versus Active Aerosol Monitoring, Appl. Ind. 

Hyg., 3, n. 9, 1988,263-266. 

5. B. Chakrabarti, P. M. Fine, R. Delfino, and S. Constantinos, Performance Evaluation 

of the Active-Flow personal DataRarn PM2.5 Mass Monitor (Thermo Anderson pDR1200) Designed for Continuous Personal Exposure Measurements, Atmospheric Environment, 38,2004,3329-3340. 

6. L. J. Liu, J. C. Slaughter, and T. V. Larsori, Comparison of Light Scattering Devices 

and Impactors for Particulate Measurement in Indoor, Outdoor, and Personal Environments, Env. Sci & Tech, 36, n. 13,2002,2977-2986. 

7. J. M. Listak, G. J. Chekan, and J. F. Colinet, Laboratory Assessment of Shield Dust 

Entrainment in High-Velocity Airstreams, Soc Min, Met, Exp Eng. Transactions, 

310,2001,155-160. 

8. P. J. E. Quintana, B. S. Samimi, M. T. Kleinrnan, L. J. Liu, K. Soto, G. Y. Warner, 

C. Bufalino, J. Valencia, D. Francis, M. H. Hovell, and R. J. Delfino, Evaluation of a 

real-time passive personal particle monitor in fixed site residential indoor and ambient measurements. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology, 

2000,437-445. 

9. R. E. Walpole and R. H. Myers, Probability and Statistics for Engineers and Scientists, Macmillan Publishing Inc., NY, NY, 1972, 173 pp. 

10. S. S. Shapiro and M. B. Wilk, An analysis of variance test for normality (complete 

samples), Biometrika, 52,3 and 4, 1965,591-61 1. 

11. H. Levene, In Contributions to Probability and Statistics: Essays in Honor of Harold 

Hotelling, eds. I. Ollcin et al., Stanford University Press, 1960,278-292. 

12. Aerosol Measurement: Principles Techniques and Applications, eds. K. Willeke and 

P. A. Baron, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, NY, 1993,339. 

13. A. B. Cecala, J. C. Volkwein, R. J. Timko, and K. L. Williams, Velocity and Orientation Effects in the 10-mm Don-Oliver Cyclone, US Bureau of Mines RI 8764, 

1983,ll pp. 

14. J. A. Organiscak, and S. J. Page, Assessment of Airborne Dust Generated from 

Small Truck-Mounted Rock Drills, US Bureau of Mines RI 9616. 1996,ll pp. 

15. K. L. Williams, and R. J. Timko, Performance of a Real-Time Aerosol Monitor, US 

Bureau of Mines IC 8968, 1984,20 pp.