Abstract
Several exposure assessment models use dustiness as an input parameter for scaling or estimating exposure during powder handling. Use of different dustiness methods will result in considerable differences in the dustiness values as they are based on different emission generation principles. EN17199:2019 offers 4 different dustiness test methods considering different dust release scenarios (e.g. powder pouring, mixing and gentle agitation, and vibration). Conceptually, the dustiness value by a given method can be multiplied with a scenario-specific modifier, called a handling energy factor (Hi), that allows conversion of a dustiness value to a release constant. Therefore, a Hi, scaling the effective mechanical energy in the process to the energy supplied in the specific dustiness test, needs to be applied. To improve the accuracy in predictive exposure modelling, we derived experimental Hi to be used in exposure algorithms considering both the mass- and number-based dust release fraction determined by the EN17199-3 continuous drop (CD) and the EN17199-4 small rotating drum (SRD) test methods. Three materials were used to evaluate the relationship between dustiness and dust levels during pouring powder from different heights in a controlled environment. The results showed increasing scatter and difference between the Hi derived for the 2 test methods with increasing pouring height. Nearly all the Hi values obtained for both SRD and CD were <1 indicating that the dustiness tests involved more energy input than the simulated pouring activity and consequently de-agglomeration and dust generation were higher. This effect was most pronounced in CD method showing that SRD mechanistically resembles more closely the powder pouring.