ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2016
Performance of High Flow Rate Personal Respirable Samplers When Challenged with Mineral Aerosols of Different Particle Size Distributions.
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 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Follow-up Biomonitoring Study of Metal Exposure in Apprentice Welders in Montreal, Quebec, During Gas Metal Arc Welding (GMAW).Biological trace element research · 2025Article
- Review of Published Laboratory-Based Aerosol Sampler Efficiency, Performance and Comparison Studies (1994-2021).International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Review
- Laboratory comparison of new high flow rate respirable size-selective sampler.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
It is thought that the performance of respirable samplers may vary when exposed to dust aerosols with different particle sizes and wind speeds. This study investigated the performance of the GK 4.16 (RASCAL), GK 2.69, PPI 8, and FSP 10, high flow rate personal samplers when exposed to aerosols of mineral dust in a wind tunnel at two different wind speeds (1 and 2 m s(-1)) and orientations (towards and side-on to the source of emission). The mass median aerodynamic diameter of four aerosolized test dusts ranged from 8 to 25 µm with geometric standard deviations from 1.6 to 2 µm. The performance of each sampler type was compared with that of the SIMPEDS (Higgins-Dewell design) sampler. There was slight evidence to suggest that the performance of the FSP 10 is affected by the direction of the inlet relative to the air flow, although this was not significant when most respirable dust concentrations were compared, possibly due to the variability of paired dust concentration results. The GK 2.69, RASCAL, and PPI 8 samplers had similar performances, although the results when side-on to the emission source were generally slightly lower than the SIMPEDS. Despite slight differences between respirable dust concentrations the respirable crystalline silica values were not significantly different from the SIMPEDS. The GK family of cyclones obtained most precise results and more closely matched the SIMPEDS. A comparison with dust concentration results from previous calm air chamber studies (where wind speeds were < 0.4 m s(-1)) found that the relative performance between samplers was similar to those observed in this work indicating consistent performance relative to the SIMPEDS in both calm and moving air.
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.