Efficacy of surface sampling methods for different types of beryllium compounds
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 7, 2026

Standardized Method for Measuring Collection Efficiency from Wipe-sampling of Trace Explosives
Published on: April 10, 2017
1Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, Faculty of Medicine, Université de Montréal, Pavillon Marguerite-d'Youville, 2375 Chemin de la Côte-Ste-Catherine, Montréal, Québec H3T 1A8, Canada.
Abstract:
The objective of the research work was to evaluate the efficiency of three different sampling methods (Ghost Wipe™, micro-vacuum, and ChemTest®) in the recovery of Be dust by assessing: (1) four Be compounds (beryllium acetate, beryllium chloride, beryllium oxide and beryllium aluminium), (2) three different surfaces (polystyrene, glass and aluminium) and (3) inter-operator variation. The three sampling methods were also tested on site in a laboratory of a dental school for validation purposes. The Ghost Wipe™ method showed recovery ranging from 43.3% to 85.8% for all four Be compounds and for all three quantities of Be spiked on Petri dishes, while recovery with the micro-vacuum method ranged from 0.1% to 12.4%. On polystyrene dishes with 0.4 µg Be, the recovery ranged from 48.3% to 81.7%, with an average recovery of 59.4% for Operator 1 and 68.4% for Operator 2. The ChemTest® wipe method with beryllium acetate, beryllium chloride, and AlBeMet® showed analogous results that are in line with the manufacturer's manual, but collection of beryllium oxide was negative. In the dental laboratory, Ghost Wipe™ samplings showed better recovery than the micro-vacuum method. The ratios between the recovered quantities of Be in each location where the Ghost Wipe™ was tested differed substantially, ranging from 1.45 to 64. In the dental laboratory, a faint blue color indicating the presence of Be was observed on the ChemTest® wipes used in two locations out of six. In summary, the Ghost Wipe™ method was more efficient than micro-vacuuming in collecting the Be dust from smooth, non-porous surfaces such as Petri dishes by a factor of approximately 18. The results obtained on site in a dental laboratory also showed better recovery with Ghost Wipes™. However, the ratio of Be recovered by Ghost Wipes™ versus micro-vacuuming was much lower for surfaces where a large amount of dust was present. Wet wiping is preferred over micro-vacuuming for beryllium forms, but this conclusion probably applies to the ultra-low particulate loading levels (0.4 micrograms or less) which was tested in this study.
More Related Videos
09:39Physical, Chemical and Biological Characterization of Six Biochars Produced for the Remediation of Contaminated Sites
Published on: November 28, 2014
10:31Detection and Recovery of Palladium, Gold and Cobalt Metals from the Urban Mine Using Novel Sensors/Adsorbents Designated with Nanoscale Wagon-wheel-shaped Pores
Published on: December 6, 2015
Related Concept Videos
Sampling Methods: Sample Types
Solid samples include a variety of substances, such as sediments from water bodies, soil, metals, and biological tissues. Two standard methods for extracting sediments from water bodies are grab sampling and piston coring. Grab sampling involves using a device to collect a discrete sediment sample from the bottom of a water body with minimal disturbance. Grab samples do not always represent the entire area due to...
Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy: Lab
Solutions containing organic solvents, such as low-molecular-mass alcohols, esters, or ketones, enhance absorbances by increasing nebulizer...
Atomic Emission Spectroscopy: Lab