[Stoves] personal pollution monitors (Andrew)

Fri Dec 23 15:27:19 CST 2016

Many years back I was using the filter papers I mentioned to measure ‘asbestos’. 
I counted any fiber I saw that was at least 2.5um long and had a diameter less the a fifth of the length (it was a long time ago and these values may be wrong). Any fiber. Could be legs from a bed bug for all I know. But calling them asbestos caused a lot of excitement. So it was fun! And I followed the procedure. So what do these measurements mean? It was interesting seeing all the other stuff collected on the filter. All colors and shapes. I think it could be used to fine tune the particle reading to measure what most likely is carbon. Perhaps get a total from a different method and this used to establish a percentage of that total being from smoke. Research needed.

Thanks

Frank
Frank Shields
Gabilan Laboratory
Keith Day Company, Inc.
1091 Madison Lane
Salinas, CA  93907
(831) 246-0417 cell
(831) 771-0126 office
fShields at keithdaycompany.com

franke at cruzio.com

> On Dec 23, 2016, at 12:50 PM, Traveller <miata98 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> What do these monitors measure and what do those measurements mean? 
> 
> Once the assumption of equitoxicity of all PM2.5 is given up, and so long as the concentration at any given time is not immediately irritating to eyes or nasal passages, what do we know of predictability for individual dosages, especially over short periods? 
> 
> Dosimetry of ionizing radiation distinguishes according to source, composition (alpha, beta, gamma, X), and duration (one-time max, cumulative max). Some of us remember the huge controversies in the 1960s about these and the UNSCEAR, about RAD v. REM. 
> 
> I have mostly forgotten but Wikipedia says, "One rem carries with it a 0.055% chance of eventually developing cancer." Against what baseline and for what purposes? From what I could find quickly <http://oregonstate.edu/ehs/rso/rsm-05>, occupational limit is "15 REMs annually to the lens of the eye" and 50 REMs annually for skin and each of the extremities". Does that mean a license for damage to eyes, skin and limbs? No, which is why we have standards based on ALARA principle. 
> 
> I think something similar applied to NAAQS (National Ambient Air Quality Standards, US) from the 1960s on, including recent revisions. Which source, what pollutant, to what end in which geography. 
> 
> OSHA (Occupatioal Safety and Health Agency, US) has tightened PM exposure standards for coal mines. Just last week NPR (National Public Radio, US) had a few stories on Black Lung among coal-miners in the series black lung returns to coal country <http://www.npr.org/series/156453033/black-lung-returns-to-coal-country>. 
> 
> I have been meaning to revisit the Black Lung regulatory history, which is why I didn't post these stories. May still do; some 20 years ago I worked on a study for the UMWA (United Mine Workers of America) for their pension funds and government responsibilities. These have become a headache for the Federal government as coal companies have been driven into bankruptcy.) 
> 
> If the epidemiology of Black Lung is not that precise, where does that of PM2.5 exposure from wood smoke, inside and outside the kitchens, stand? 
> 
> To be precise about it, "Nowhere. It doesn't have a leg to stand on, leave alone two or three or four." 
> 
> A couple of months ago I posted on EPA's assumptions that absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and another time on Kirk Smith piece for the World Bank in 1999 on to "relative risk" predictions via "Integrated Exposure Review" (IER) for the purposes of the GoBbleDygook that is the Global Burden of Disease. 
> 
> Of course, nobody need take me at my word. I welcome any and every challenge that first provides me with the database of HAP emissions and exposures for the three billion people worldwide, and the detailed sourcing of this data. WHO had its own literature Reviews a couple of years back on the quality of data and methods. A dodgy exercise, in my view, a license to set IAQ Guidelines (I still don't know how else WHO could have come up with such numbers except on the basis of "relative risk" hocus pocus by Burnett et al. 2014 piece I cited.) 
> 
> In any event, suspending the assumption of equitoxicity - or linearity for extrapolation, or both - renders this IER method useless. If Ron or BAMG wishes to provide evidence to the contrary, I am always ready to be proven wrong (I hope) for the particular concern at hand (stove emission rates), or shown not having had done enough research and thinking (I doubt, but can't read everything). I can be fooled too. 
> 
> 
> ***
> I have COPD, so I am somewhat interested in monitoring my personal exposure. As far as I know, these monitors do not distinguish between species. So no useful knowledge is available. 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>  
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2016 22:33:29 +0000
> From: Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com <mailto:aj.heggie at gmail.com>>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] personal pollution monitors
> Message-ID:
>         <CAPSaZeb10aJiziO0q3N-0ZF_spHFzZ7OFt5yYjtQd+JjWWZT0w at mail.gmail.com <mailto:CAPSaZeb10aJiziO0q3N-0ZF_spHFzZ7OFt5yYjtQd%2BJjWWZT0w at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On 22 December 2016 at 18:59, Crispin Pemberton-Pigott
> <crispinpigott at outlook.com <mailto:crispinpigott at outlook.com>> wrote:
> > Dear Andrew
> >
> > In the interest of a realistic and informative discussion it is reasonable to post the ad here so we can all see it.
> 
> Sorry Crispin, I had an e-mail last week from China and deleted it not seeing a need, however I have just read a report that wood burning in UK is responsible for >2 times the amount of black carbon compared with emissions from diesel cars here. There is currently an outcry against diesel cars in London which is only 25 miles from here and I burn wood in a stove along with 16% of households locally, and yes I have a diesel car.
> 
> So I became quite interested in measuring my personal exposure.
> 
> It's mildly  [stove] related
> 
> Andrew
> 
>  
> >
> 
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161222/c4b9c641/attachment-0001.html <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161222/c4b9c641/attachment-0001.html>>
> 
> ---- 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2016 16:46:03 +0000
> From: Andrew Heggie <aj.heggie at gmail.com <mailto:aj.heggie at gmail.com>>
> To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves
>         <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org <mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
> Subject: Re: [Stoves] personal pollution monitors
> Message-ID:
>         <CAPSaZeaNdOC=4jR2K0p7sZHboDg+J9V9zLePQ+LC=xYSW6_6qA at mail.gmail.com <mailto:xYSW6_6qA at mail.gmail.com>>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
> 
> On 23 December 2016 at 09:06, Frans Peeters <peetersfrans at telenet.be <mailto:peetersfrans at telenet.be>> wrote:
> > Dear Andrew,
> 
> >  FOR THE AMATEUR :  An old CDROM DRIVE has the electro-optic components to
> > start with !
> > Laser and Se opto detector . Prisma lenses .
> >     A laptop and scope program comes next.
> 
> Lovely idea Frans but beyond my capabilities
> 
> 
> > A personal counter is like a Nuc dose  counter were the Si detector is
> > changed to opto Si PIN diode .
> > In a laser scatter set up .
> 
> That's precisely the analogy I was thinking of, in the 60s we had dosimeters which were small electroscopes built like a biro pen, they were charged each day and ionising radiation gradually discharged them. They had a miniature microscope with a calibrated scale from
> which the state of discharge could be read.  The same sort of thing that counted accumulated particles passing through it would do the job.
> 
> Frank's method is probably a bit too arcane for an amateur to use.
> 
> Andrew
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Stoves mailing list
> 
> to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
> stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
> http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org
> 
> for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
> http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/
> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20161223/1c7c83bf/attachment.html>