Citation

Slagley JM, Paschold H, Engler JM. J. Occup. Env. Hyg. 2017; 14(7): 502-509.

Affiliation

Indiana University of Pennsylvania , Department of Safety Sciences , Indiana , PA 15705.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2017, Informa - Taylor and Francis Group)

DOI

10.1080/15459624.2017.1296235

PMID

28406362

Abstract

A full-size manikin dressed in fire-resistant coveralls coated in 120 grams of sodium bicarbonate was randomly given one of three treatments for dry aerosol decontamination. The three treatments were high-efficiency particulate air (HEPA) vacuum, a commercially-available air shower, and the no treatment control. Immediately after the treatment, the coveralls were doffed and an air sample was taken in the breathing zone of the manikin to estimate airborne total and respirable dust concentrations to an unprotected worker post decontamination. Each treatment was applied four times for a total of 12 trials. Using analysis of variance (ANOVA) with alpha =.05 and Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference multiple comparison post-test, it was determined that HEPA vacuuming was not significantly different from the air shower for respirable dust, but only the air shower was significantly better than no decontamination (p =.037). For total dust, HEPA was not significantly different from the air shower, but both were significantly better than no treatment (p =.007, p =.004, respectively).

Language: en

Keywords

Aerosol; Decontamination; Manikin