ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2016
Silica Measurement with High Flow Rate Respirable Size Selective Samplers: A Field Study.
Article in The Annals of occupational hygiene, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Laboratory comparison of new high flow rate respirable size-selective sampler.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2018Article
- Calibration of high flow rate thoracic-size selective samplers.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
High and low flow rate respirable size selective samplers including the CIP10-R (10 l min(-1)), FSP10 (11.2 l min(-1)), GK2.69 (4.4 l min(-1)), 10-mm nylon (1.7 l min(-1)), and Higgins-Dewell type (2.2 l min(-1)) were compared via side-by-side sampling in workplaces for respirable crystalline silica measurement. Sampling was conducted at eight different occupational sites in the USA and five different stonemasonry sites in Ireland. A total of 536 (268 pairs) personal samples and 55 area samples were collected. Gravimetric analysis was used to determine respirable dust mass and X-ray diffraction analysis was used to determine quartz mass. Ratios of respirable dust mass concentration, quartz mass concentration, respirable dust mass, and quartz mass from high and low flow rate samplers were compared. In general, samplers did not show significant differences greater than 30% in respirable dust mass concentration and quartz mass concentration when outliers (ratio <0.3 or >3.0) were removed from the analysis. The frequency of samples above the limit of detection and limit of quantification of quartz was significantly higher for the CIP10-R and FSP10 samplers compared to low flow rate samplers, while the GK2.69 cyclone did not show significant difference from low flow rate samplers. High flow rate samplers collected significantly more respirable dust and quartz than low flow rate samplers as expected indicating that utilizing high flow rate samplers might improve precision in quartz measurement. Although the samplers did not show significant differences in respirable dust and quartz concentrations, other practical attributes might make them more or less suitable for personal sampling.
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.