Related Experiment Video
Updated: May 13, 2026

Characterization and Application of Passive Samplers for Monitoring of Pesticides in Water
Published on: August 3, 2016
A comparison of two sampling methods for the detection of airborne methylene bisphenyl diisocyanate
Joshua W Schaeffer1, Layne Marie Sargent, Delvin R Sandfort
1Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, Colorado 80523, USA. joshua.schaeffer@colostate.edu
Abstract:
The purpose of this study was to determine if there was a significant difference between two readily available sampling methodologies for airborne methylene bisphenyl diisocyanate (MDI), which is an essential precursor in the spray-on truck bed lining industry. Seventy-two personal airborne samples of MDI were collected and analyzed from nine spray-on truck bed liner businesses in northern Colorado. Wide ranges of exposure concentrations were encountered during the spray-on application, including concentrations that exceeded the OSHA permissible exposure limit. The highest airborne MDI concentration measured was 690 ppb. A statistically significant difference between field-desorbed and laboratory-desorbed methods was determined. The field-desorbed sampling methodology yielded consistently higher MDI concentrations than the laboratory-desorbed sampling methodology, which suggests that immediate desorption minimizes isocyanate loss and potential underestimations. Results from the analysis of variance also indicated that different facility factors and environmental conditions within each company, such as the use of ventilation or humidity level, affected the MDI concentrations, indicating the potential for better mitigation of exposures using the hierarchy of controls.
More Related Videos
11:59Extraction and Detection of Geosmin and 2-Methylisoborneol in Water and Fish using High-Capacity Sorptive Extraction Probes and GC-MS
Published on: July 3, 2025
10:29Calibrated Passive Sampling - Multi-plot Field Measurements of NH3 Emissions with a Combination of Dynamic Tube Method and Passive Samplers
Published on: March 21, 2016