STUDIES ON THE INDUSTRIAL DUST PROBLEM - III - Comparative Field Studies of the Palmer Apparatus, the Konimeter, and the Impinger Methods for Sampling Aerial Dust

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Ezra

Study focuses on comparative field investigations of industrial atmospheric dust sampling devices, emphasizing the Palmer apparatus and contrasting it with other methods and instruments including the Konimeter and the Impinger. The text reviews multiple approaches for determining sampling instrument efficiency—mass feeding, simultaneous comparative sampling in dusty atmospheres, and an optical approach based on the Tyndall effect. It argues that comparative ratings aid field instrument selection, while the optical Tyndall method offers the most direct measure of actual efficiency under stringent test conditions.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages13

Reading Time33 min

AccessFree to download

Studies on the Industrial Dust Problem

Summary of Previous Comparative Dust-Instrument Studies

97-84071-27Greenburg,Leonard Studies on the industrialdust….II.Comparative...Washington 1925 # COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY LIBRARIESPRESEBVATION DIVISIONBIBLIOGBAPHIC MICROFORM TARGET ORIGINAL MATERIAL AS FILMED·EXISTING BIBLIOGRAPHIC RECORD Reproductions may no be made wthout permisslon trom Columbla University Libraries. ## RESTRICTIONS ON USE: TECHNICAL MICROFORM DATA REDUCTION BATIO: 10:/ IB IB IMAGE PLACEMENT:IA DATE FILMED: 5-2-97INITIALS: B TRACKING\#: 23634 FILMED BY PRESERVATION RESOURCES,BETHLEHEM,PA. STUDIES ON THEINDUSTRIAL DUST PROBLEM II.COMPARATIVE FIELD STUDIES OF THEPALMER APPARATUS,THE KONIMETERAND THE IMPINGER METHODS FORSAMPLING AERIAL DUST 308 又 22 BY LEONARD GREENBURG Aasociate Sanilary EngineerUnited States Pwblic Health ServiceOffice of Industrial Hygiene and Sarilation REPRINT No.1033FROM THE PUBLIC HEALTH REPORTSJULY 81,1925(Pages 1591-1608) WASHINGTONGOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1925 # STUDIES ON THE INDUSTRIAL DUST PROBLEM III.COMPARATIVE FIELD STUDIES OF THE PALMER APPARATUS,THE KONIMETER,AND THE IMPINGER METHODS FOR SAMPLINGAERIAL DUST1 By LEONAID GngNBURG,Associate Banltary Englneer,United States Publie Health Service,Omee ofIndustrial Hygbione and Sanitation Many different methods have been devised and used for thesampling and estimation of atmospheric dust.These methods werereviewed in the previous paper of this series(1).In that paper alsothe advantages and disadvantages of each of the methods werepointed out,as well as the general requirements of the ideal dustsampling instrument for industrial atmospheres.In order to be ofmost value,the sampling method should yield counts of the numberof dust particles and should,in addition,possess high dust catchingefficiency. ADDITIONAL COPIE8 Numerous attempts have been made to determine the efficiency ofdust-sampling instruments.In general this has been done by one ofthree methods.The earliest of these consists in feeding a knownweight of dust to the dust-sampling instrument in the stream ofincoming air and then determining the weight of dust retained bythe instrument.In the second method the instruments beingtested are placed in the given dusty atmosphere which they samplesimultaneously.The results obtained by the instruments may thenbe compared,the instrument giving the greatest yield being con-sidered the most efficient.The last method,based on the Tyndalleffect,makes use of an apparatus by means of which the stream ofdusty air entering the sampling instrument may be comparedoptically with the stream of air emerging from the instrument.By means of suitably arranged flow meters and mixing devices it ispossible to determine the amount of dust-free air that it is necessaryto add to a portion of the entering dusty air in order to make bothstreams match in intensity when viewed simultaneously in a beamof light. OF THIS PUBLICATION MAY sg FaOCURED rBOM THE SUrELUINTZKDENT OF DoCUMENTS GOVENMENT rEINTLS9 orrc WASEINGTON,D.C. AT 5 CENTS PER OOPY The first of these three methods yields results which are open tosome degree of question.It is obvious that this method gives theinstrument a decided advantage over actual field conditions.Thesecond method yields only comparative efficiency ratings,but byits use the most efficient instrument may be selected,and underactual field conditions such as the instrument must meet in continued use.The last method is the only one by which the actual efficiencymay be obtained.It is true,however,that this method imposes avery severe set of conditions on the instruments tested.It is ourfeeling that this last method yields results of interest and value,butthat the second method is of most valuein the selection of an instru-ment for the field sampling of industrial dusts. ## SUMMARY OF PREVIOUs COMPARATIVE DU8T-INSTRUMENT STUDI

FAQs

What criteria make an ideal dust-sampling instrument for industrial atmospheres?

The text states the method should yield counts of the number of dust particles and also possess high dust-catching efficiency.

How does the document compare different ways to determine dust-sampling efficiency?

It reviews three methods: feeding a known weight of dust and measuring retained mass, conducting simultaneous comparative sampling in a dusty atmosphere, and using an apparatus based on the Tyndall effect to match optical intensities.

Why is the Tyndall-effect method considered the most direct for actual efficiency?

The document says it is the only method by which actual efficiency may be obtained, but it imposes very severe conditions on the instruments tested.

Sep 21, 2026

Uploaded by Ezra