ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2014
Collection efficiencies of high flow rate personal respirable samplers when measuring Arizona road dust and analysis of quartz by x-ray diffraction.
Article in The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 22 citations in OpenAlex.
- Influence of COAntibiotics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Development of handling energy factors for use of dustiness data in exposure assessment modelling.Annals of work exposures and health · 2024Article
- Review of Published Laboratory-Based Aerosol Sampler Efficiency, Performance and Comparison Studies (1994-2021).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- A novel sampling cassette for field-based analysis of respirable crystalline silica.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2021Article
- Occupational Exposure and Environmental Release: The Case Study of Pouring TiOInternational journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Article
- Laboratory comparison of new high flow rate respirable size-selective sampler.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2018Article
- Particle release and control of worker exposure during laboratory-scale synthesis, handling and simulated spills of manufactured nanomaterials in fume hoods.Journal of nanoparticle research : an interdisciplinary forum for nanoscale science and technology · 2018Article
- A New Miniature Respirable Sampler for In-mask Sampling: Part 1-Particle Size Selection Performance.The Annals of occupational hygiene · 2016Article
- Performance of High Flow Rate Personal Respirable Samplers When Challenged with Mineral Aerosols of Different Particle Size Distributions.The Annals of occupational hygiene · 2016Article
- Silica Measurement with High Flow Rate Respirable Size Selective Samplers: A Field Study.The Annals of occupational hygiene · 2016Article
- Calibration of high flow rate thoracic-size selective samplers.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2016Article
- Promoting early exposure monitoring for respirable crystalline silica: Taking the laboratory to the mine site.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2016Article
- Assessment of respirable crystalline silica analysis using Proficiency Analytical Testing results from 2003-2013.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Prolonged exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) causes silicosis and is also considered a cause of cancer. To meet emerging needs for precise measurements of RCS, from shorter sampling periods (<4 h) and lower air concentrations, collaborative work was done to assess the differences between personal respirable samplers at higher flow rates. The performance of FSP10, GK2.69, and CIP 10 R samplers were compared with that of the Safety In Mines Personal Dust Sampler (SIMPEDS) sampler as a reference, which is commonly used in the UK for the measurement of RCS. In addition, the performance of the FSP10 and GK 2.69 samplers were compared; at the nominal flow rates recommended by the manufacturers of 10 and 4.2 l · min(-1) and with flow rates proposed by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health of 11.2 and 4.4 l · min(-1). Samplers were exposed to aerosols of ultrafine and medium grades of Arizona road dust (ARD) generated in a calm air chamber. All analyses for RCS in this study were performed at the Health and Safety Laboratory. The difference in flow rates for the GK2.69 is small and does not result in a substantial difference in collection efficiency for the dusts tested, while the performance of the FSP10 at 11.2 l · min(-1) was more comparable with samples from the SIMPEDS. Conversely, the GK2.69 collected proportionately more crystalline silica in the respirable dust than other samplers, which then produced RCS results most comparable with the SIMPEDS. The CIP 10 R collected less ultrafine ARD than other samplers, as might be expected based on earlier performance evaluations. The higher flow rate for the FSP10 should be an added advantage for task-specific sampling or when measuring air concentrations less than current occupational exposure limits.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.