Issue 5, 2023

Comprehensive methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) evaluation method comparison using a laboratory generation system

Abstract

Isocyanates are reactive semivolatile contaminants that must be assessed in occupational environments, and specific evaluation methods are required to address the challenges related to isocyanate emission characteristics. Several standard methods exist, but significant differences remain regarding the diversity of industrial isocyanate emissions. This study presents a method to establish a baseline comparison of three sampling principles. A fine aerosol (mass median aerodynamic diameter of 250 nm) of pure methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) was produced (5–60 μg m−3) using a laboratory generation system (n = 31 generation experiments). Airborne MDI was measured with the following four methods, with an emphasis on the spatial distribution of the collected MDI within the sampler: (1) Swinnex cassette 13 mm, glass fibre filter (GFF), 9-(N-methylaminomethyl) anthracene (MAMA-Swin); (2) closed-face cassette (CFC) 37 mm, GFF (end filter and inner walls), MAMA-37; (3) impinger and backup GGF, 1,2-methoxyphenylpiperazine (MP) (ISO 16702/MDHS 25); and (4) denuder and GFF (Asset EZ4-NCO), dibutylamine (DBA) (ISO 17334-1). Bland and Altman analyses determined that there were no significant bias between the methods although Asset was not in agreement with MAMA-Swin (95% confidence interval above the ±20% criteria). Significant correlations (P < 0.05) were observed between airborne MDI concentration levels and their distribution within the Asset (denuder vs. end filter) and impinger (collecting solution vs. backup filter) subsections. The presence of impregnated inner walls in the CFC did not increase collection efficiency for the generated MDI aerosol. Non-uniform MAMA impregnation on GFF was demonstrated, whereas the collected MDI was evenly distributed in the air samples. These results provided the basis of comparison for other studies involving more complex isocyanate emissions.

Graphical abstract: Comprehensive methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) evaluation method comparison using a laboratory generation system

Supplementary files

Article information

Article type
Paper
Submitted
02 Nov. 2022
Accepted
04 Apr. 2023
First published
05 Apr. 2023

Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2023,25, 941-953

Comprehensive methylene diphenyl diisocyanate (MDI) evaluation method comparison using a laboratory generation system

S. Aubin, L. Wingert, S. Gagné, L. Breau and J. Lesage, Environ. Sci.: Processes Impacts, 2023, 25, 941 DOI: 10.1039/D2EM00443G

To request permission to reproduce material from this article, please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

If you are an author contributing to an RSC publication, you do not need to request permission provided correct acknowledgement is given.

If you are the author of this article, you do not need to request permission to reproduce figures and diagrams provided correct acknowledgement is given. If you want to reproduce the whole article in a third-party publication (excluding your thesis/dissertation for which permission is not required) please go to the Copyright Clearance Center request page.

Read more about how to correctly acknowledge RSC content.

Social activity

Spotlight

Advertisements