作業環境空氣中二硫化碳〈Carbon disulfide；CS2〉係以活性碳管連接採樣泵進行主動式採樣以溶劑脫附後，進行氣相層析火燄光度偵測法(GC/FPD)分析。面臨檢測之線性範圍窄，低濃度時變異性大，需使用有機溶劑，採樣時增加勞工及採樣人員的負擔等困擾。本研究參考美國環境保護局(USEPA)之TO-17熱脫附分析方法，直接應用儀器分析使用的熱脫附管，利用擴散原理進行被動式樣本採集，分析時安裝於自動熱脫附儀上，將脫附之樣品導入氣相層析質譜儀(GC/MS)進行分析，並與主動式採樣之溶劑脫附法及氣相層析火燄光度偵測法分析所得之結果，進行適用性評估比較。並進行現場實際採樣分析應用評估及暴露偵測。 重點內容 1. 以熱脫附氣相層析質譜儀方法進行空氣中CS2之採樣分析方法建立及驗證。於熱脫附管中填充Spherocarb吸附劑，以熱脫附GC/MS進行分析；並以主動式採樣溶劑脫附之GC/MS分析進行確認。 2. 二硫化碳主動式及被動式採樣分析方法驗證。主動式採樣係以溶劑脫附，分別進行氣相層析火燄光度偵測法及氣相層析質譜儀二種分析方法，及被動式採樣 3. 以熱脫附進行氣相層析質譜分析方法，比較三種結果間的相關性。 研究對象，分別針對實驗室內標準氣體產生設備及二硫化碳作業現場之實際測試。以現場測定結果評估勞工暴露狀況。 方法 1. 於動態標準氣體產生器中，進行分析條件探討。使用自動熱脫附儀之熱脫附管內填充Spherocarb吸附劑，進行被動式採樣，以熱脫附GC/MS進行分析；並以主動式採樣溶劑脫附之GC/MS分析進行確認。 2. 於使用CS2有機溶劑之縈嫘工廠作業現場，以自動熱脫附儀之熱脫附管內填充Spherocarb吸附劑，進行被動式採樣，以熱脫附GC/MS進行分析；另使用單獨活性碳管，以及活性碳管連接乾燥管，二種主動式採樣方式，與被動式採樣於同地點同步進行，並以溶劑脫附方法分別進行GC/FPD及GC/MS分析。 3. 針對作業現場之勞工暴露現況調查，則針對各不同班別及各不同作業別之勞工共92人，於五個月期間，執行每月一次，共五次測定。 結果 1. 熱脫附氣相層析質譜儀法之檢量線範圍：0.687 ug~103.36 ug，RPD%<10% 2. 溶劑脫附氣相層析火燄光度偵測法之檢量線範圍：0.0125~0.1mg，RPD%<10% 溶劑脫附氣相層析質譜儀法之檢量線範圍：0.114mg/mL~1.92mg/mL，RPD%<10%。 3. 作業現場之勞工個人暴露與現場區域濃度範圍在5~40ppm之間。 4. 主動式及被動式採樣、分析所得之結果，相關性達R2>0.9，且不具差異性(P>0.05)。 5. 分析準確度範圍為85%~115%，精密度為 ±15%以內。 結論 1. 二硫化碳應用被動式採樣及熱脫附GC/MS之分析方法，具簡便、低危害性與低偵測濃度點等優點。 2. 由實驗結果顯示二硫化碳之主動式與被動式採樣及分析結果，具顯著相關，且不具差異性（P>0.05），故以被動式方式進行採樣，以熱脫附GC/MS之檢測方法，具實際應用的可行性。 3. 二硫化碳現場勞工暴露濃度範圍在5~40ppm之間，超出法規容許濃度(10 ppm)者佔：早班（25%）、中班（25%）、晚班（33%），顯示作業環境應進行改善。; Objective: The purpose of this research was focused on the field validation of active and passive sampling techniques for Carbon disulfide (CS2) exposure assessment. The accuracy and precision of both sampling methods were evaluated and statistically analyzed. Method: An eight-hour sampling time was applied to each of 15 workers and 15 areas in the rayon factory. The parallel sampling strategy were employed for both active and passive sampling at CS2 workplace. A solid sorbent of Spherocarb packed in a stainless tube attached with diffusion cap was used for passive sample collection. A charcoal tube assembled in a active pumping system was used for active sample collection. The passive sample tubes were thermally desorbed and then analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry (GC/MS). The active charcoal tubes were desorbed with toluene and then analyzed by gas chromatography/flame photometric detector (GC/FPD). The results of two sampling techniques were statistically analyzed through correlation analysis and student''s t-test. Results: The range of calibration standards was 0.7~103 mg for GC/MS analysis and 12.5~100 mg for GC/FPD analysis. The relative percent deviation (RPD) was less than 10% for both analysis methods. The concentrations of CS2 in the air of workplace ranged between 5 to 40 ppm (v/v). The results between active and passive sampling techniques were statistically correlated with r2 >0.9 and with no significant difference (P> 0.05). Conclusion: Both active and passive sampling methods at CS2 workplace were statistically correlated and with no significant difference. The capability of using passive sampling followed by thermal desorption and GC/MS analysis for CS2 assessment is realized from our results. The low level detection , enhanced sensitivity and specificity are several good features for passive thermal desorption and GC/MS analysis method. Corrective action need to be applied for those workers with higher exposure than permissible exposure limit which is 10 ppm.
