曝光臺 注意防騙 網曝天貓店富美金盛家居專營店坑蒙拐騙欺詐消費者

Any sampling method that relies on sample collection of an air sample containing a mist, and analysis of a residual vapour (when all the mist has settled) could underestimate exposure by orders of magnitude…. Tricresyl phosphates are detected only in a method where the entire sample is captured and not allowed to disperse… 34
4.37 Dr Winder was critical of the survey methods used by Ansett and its findings:
In the main, these surveys use inadequate methods or inappropriate technologies to measure for all toxic contaminants. … Further, collection of contaminated air into sample containers for subsequent analysis underrates the problem, as mist particles will settle and coalesce on the walls of the container, leaving only small amounts of vapour to be analysed at a later date. Further and perhaps most critically, there has never been a monitoring survey conducted during a leak event to actually identify what the actual contaminants might be. 35
4.38 Dr Winder detailed what he saw as the methodological problems with these studies, namely:
.  
the monitoring was carried out using inappropriate conditions, such as testing at ground level;

.  
the monitoring was carried out using inappropriate methods, such as analyses of samples collected in summa canisters or Tedlar bags, when mists could coalesce onto the surface of the sample container;

.  
storage of sample containers was too long (for example, over 72 hours after sample collection when some compounds could be lost, or semi-volatile compounds would adhere to the inside of the bag); some studies are not relevant to the BAe 146, or to Mobil Jet Oil II;

.  
little evidence is presented to indicate if monitoring was carried out after scheduled maintenance, or seal, oil or filter changes, so it is difficult to assess whether the monitoring was representative of typical exposures;

.  
most importantly, no monitoring was conducted out at a time when an odour incident had occurred.36

34 Submission 6, Associate Professor Chris Winder, p 11
35 Associate Professor Chris Winder, Evidence, 1 November 1999, pp 5, see also 13-14
36 Submission 6, Associate Professor Chris Winder, p 11, see also pp 14-15
4.39 Dr Winder argued that:
Airline claims that the results of monitoring indicate that exposures are within recommended exposure standards and that there is no problem are nonsensical. Survey methods are inadequate and the results severely underestimate exposure. … Air monitoring does not measure skin exposure at all and therefore exposure from another route is completely ignored. Lastly, and perhaps most critically in this particular area, is that the operation of exposure standards is not allowed at altitude. So statements that exposure standards are being met go beyond what the exposure standards bodies recommend that they be used for.37
Response to criticisms of current Australian testing methods
　
中國航空網 m.k6050.com
航空翻譯 www.aviation.cn
本文鏈接地址：Air Safety and Cabin Air Quality in the BAe 146 Aircraft(58)