Evaluation of surface sampling methods for platinum salts / Minette Nel
Motivation: The health effects of platinum on the human body are a great concern. It affects the respiratory system as well as the skin. The demands for platinum have seemingly increased over the last few years due to its use in automobile exhaust gas catalysts. Thus there will be an increase in the production and processing of platinum and therefore a greater possibility of exposure to platinum compounds. This is why it is of great importance to evaluate the surface sampling methods, to ensure that they are effective for platinum use. Objectives: 1) To evaluate and compare a few different surface sampling methods for removal of platinum salts from contaminated surfaces in order to determine which one of these methods has the best retention and recovery efficiency. 2) To use the most effective method to monitor surface contamination on porous and non–porous surfaces in a platinum refinery. Methods: Two types of filters (mixed cellulose ester and polyvinyl chloride) and GhostwipesTM were evaluated and compared in this study. Platinum solution (hexachloroplatinic acid) concentrations of 50, 150 and 300 ug Pt/ml solution were used. The retention efficiency of the different sampling mediums was tested by releasing 1 ml of each concentration directly onto the sampling medium. Efficiencies were tested on a non–porous (glass) and porous surface (semi–face bricks). This was done to see how the collection efficiency of the medium will differ on these two surfaces. A total of three wipes were used per surface, however were analyzed individually. All the samples were analyzed using the Inductively Coupled Plasma Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP–AES) analytical method by an accredited laboratory. Results: The results obtained indicated the retention and recovery efficiencies of the three sampling mediums at the three platinum concentrations of 50, 150 and 300 ug Pt/ml solutions. The retention efficiency of the GhostwipesTM was 93.2% at 50 ug Pt/ml solution, 95.3% at 150 ug Pt/ml solution and 93.6% at 300 ug Pt/ml solution, whilst the mixed cellulose ester (MCE) filters and polyvinyl chloride (PVC) filters were lower than 30% at all three concentrations. The overall recovery efficiencies of all three concentrations of the GhostwipesTM and MCE filter were the highest: the GhostwipesTM with levels of 73.9 %, 84.4% and 63.5% and the MCE filters with levels of 71.4%, 84.4% and 80.2%, whilst the PVC filters did not achieve levels above 60%. The wipe materials were also evaluated in terms of the ASTM E1792 standard requirements for wipe materials. Conclusion: GhostwipesTM were found to be the most suitable sampling medium based on retention and recovery efficiencies. The GhostwipesTM also complies with all the requirements listed in the ASTM E1792 standard for wipe materials, which makes it the most suitable wipe sampling material. The MCE and PVC filters however do not comply with all the ASTM E1792 requirements.
- ETD@PUK