![Sample our Economics, Finance,Business & Industry journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5931/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Economics-Finance-Business-Industry.jpg"})
Abstract
Two formaldehyde passive dosimeters, the DuPont Pro-Tek[rgrave] badge and the 3M Formaldehyde Monitor 3751, were compared to the NIOSH P&CAM 125 method using t-tests and multivariate analyses. Approximately 270 area samples (90 sets of matched samples) were taken in nine formaldehyde-using plants. Above the level of sensitivity (1.60 ppm-hours), the results of the DuPont badge were, on average, not statistically different from those of the NIOSH method using the t-test. The slope of the fitted linear regression line comparing the DuPont badge results to the NIOSH method results was statistically different from zero, and the coefficient of determination (R2) was 0.92. Above the level of sensitivity (0.80 ppm-hours), the results of the 3M badge were, on average, lower (but not statistically) than those of the NIOSH method. The slope of the fitted regression line was different from zero, and the coefficient of determination was 0.44. The presence of dust was found to be a significant variable in determining how well each dosimeter predicted the NIOSH method, and after adjusting for dust, both predicted the NIOSH method well.
