Background: Workers are daily exposed to diesel exhaust (DE) and DPM due to the continuous increase of diesel–powered vehicles in the underground mining environment. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that DE be regarded as a “potential occupational carcinogen”. A great concern in the South African mining industry is that there is currently no existing occupational exposure limits (OEL) for DPM. Aim: To quantify the exposure of workers to DPM (that consists out of total carbon (TC): which is a combination of elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC)) in the ambient air of underground working environments. Also to compare different occupations exposure levels to an international standard (the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s (MSHA) OEL for TC) as South Africa has no proposed guideline or standard for occupational exposure to DPM and finally to determine whether or not occupations working at mines with different mining methods have different exposure levels to DPM. Methodology: Workers personal exposure to DPM was monitored using the NIOSH 5040 method. A DPM sampler that consisted of a cyclone, a pre–packed SKC filter cassette (37 mm) with impactor, tubing, label clips and a sampling pump was used. The flow rate was calibrated at 2.0 litres per minute (L/min) for the sampling of sub–micrometer particles. The personal sampler device was attached to the employee’s breathing zone for the duration of the work shift (normal eight–hour time–weighted average (TWA) standard). A high risk group (workers operating diesel–powered vehicles), a low risk group (workers working in the same mine, sharing the same supplied air, but not operating these vehicles) and a control group (workers working at a different mine with a different mining method) was monitored. The exposure levels were evaluated and compared with the specific OEL mentioned previously. Results: For the purpose of this study, TC exposure results were evaluated and not EC or OC. All the occupations within their specific exposure group was exposed to TC. When the control group’s exposures were compared with the high and low risk group exposures, a significant difference was recorded (p–value = 0.0001). However when the high and low risk exposures were compared with each other, no difference was recorded (p–value = 0.4405). When the results of the various groups were compared with the MSHA OEL all the occupations from the high and low risk group’s results were above the OEL, but only one occupation from the control group exceeded the OEL. Conclusion: It should be noted that all the occupations no matter the mining method / mine was exposed to TC. The high and low risk exposure groups was however much higher than the control group and a continues monitoring programme should be implemented for these exposure groups. Their results exceeded the OEL, where the control group had much lower exposure levels and only one occupation exceeded the OEL. Greater focus should be given to the mechanized mining occupations since diesel–powered vehicles are used to perform their core mining needs whereas at the conventional mine the use of these vehicles are limited. Recommendation: Depending on the different occupations sampled various engineering controls can be considered. Some include diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), diesel particulate filters (DPF) and diesel disposable exhaust filters (DEF) or also known as disposable diesel exhaust filters (DDEF) which is very effective in removing DPM from the exhaust of dieselpowered equipment. Education and training are also critical components to the success of a diesel emission management programme and the last resort to be considered is the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). South Africa should consider the implementation of national standards in order to monitor the progress and success of the diesel emission management programme implemented. / Thesis (M.Sc. (Occupational Hygiene))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.

Background: Workers are daily exposed to diesel exhaust (DE) and DPM due to the continuous increase of diesel–powered vehicles in the underground mining environment. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) recommends that DE be regarded as a “potential occupational carcinogen”. A great concern in the South African mining industry is that there is currently no existing occupational exposure limits (OEL) for DPM. Aim: To quantify the exposure of workers to DPM (that consists out of total carbon (TC): which is a combination of elemental carbon (EC) and organic carbon (OC)) in the ambient air of underground working environments. Also to compare different occupations exposure levels to an international standard (the Mine Safety and Health Administration’s (MSHA) OEL for TC) as South Africa has no proposed guideline or standard for occupational exposure to DPM and finally to determine whether or not occupations working at mines with different mining methods have different exposure levels to DPM. Methodology: Workers personal exposure to DPM was monitored using the NIOSH 5040 method. A DPM sampler that consisted of a cyclone, a pre–packed SKC filter cassette (37 mm) with impactor, tubing, label clips and a sampling pump was used. The flow rate was calibrated at 2.0 litres per minute (L/min) for the sampling of sub–micrometer particles. The personal sampler device was attached to the employee’s breathing zone for the duration of the work shift (normal eight–hour time–weighted average (TWA) standard). A high risk group (workers operating diesel–powered vehicles), a low risk group (workers working in the same mine, sharing the same supplied air, but not operating these vehicles) and a control group (workers working at a different mine with a different mining method) was monitored. The exposure levels were evaluated and compared with the specific OEL mentioned previously. Results: For the purpose of this study, TC exposure results were evaluated and not EC or OC. All the occupations within their specific exposure group was exposed to TC. When the control group’s exposures were compared with the high and low risk group exposures, a significant difference was recorded (p–value = 0.0001). However when the high and low risk exposures were compared with each other, no difference was recorded (p–value = 0.4405). When the results of the various groups were compared with the MSHA OEL all the occupations from the high and low risk group’s results were above the OEL, but only one occupation from the control group exceeded the OEL. Conclusion: It should be noted that all the occupations no matter the mining method / mine was exposed to TC. The high and low risk exposure groups was however much higher than the control group and a continues monitoring programme should be implemented for these exposure groups. Their results exceeded the OEL, where the control group had much lower exposure levels and only one occupation exceeded the OEL. Greater focus should be given to the mechanized mining occupations since diesel–powered vehicles are used to perform their core mining needs whereas at the conventional mine the use of these vehicles are limited. Recommendation: Depending on the different occupations sampled various engineering controls can be considered. Some include diesel oxidation catalysts (DOC), diesel particulate filters (DPF) and diesel disposable exhaust filters (DEF) or also known as disposable diesel exhaust filters (DDEF) which is very effective in removing DPM from the exhaust of dieselpowered equipment. Education and training are also critical components to the success of a diesel emission management programme and the last resort to be considered is the appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE). South Africa should consider the implementation of national standards in order to monitor the progress and success of the diesel emission management programme implemented. / Thesis (M.Sc. (Occupational Hygiene))--North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2012.