Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26865560›Full record

ArticleThe Annals of occupational hygiene2016

Performance of High Flow Rate Personal Respirable Samplers When Challenged with Mineral Aerosols of Different Particle Size Distributions.

Peter Stacey, Andrew Thorpe, Alan Echt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Laboratory comparison of new high flow rate respirable size-selective sampler.Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene · 2018
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Peter Stacey1.The Health and Safety Laboratory, Chemical and Biological Risks Unit, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK 17 9JN, UK; peter.stacey@hsl.gsi.gov.uk.
Andrew Thorpe1.The Health and Safety Laboratory, Chemical and Biological Risks Unit, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK 17 9JN, UK;
Alan Echt2.National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Exposure Assessment Branch, 1090 Tusculum Ave, MS R- 5 Cincinnati, OH 45226 USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

AerosolsAir MovementsAir Pollutants, OccupationalDustEnvironmental MonitoringEquipment DesignHumansInhalation ExposureOccupational ExposureParticle SizeSilicon DioxideAerosolsAir Pollutants, OccupationalDustSilicon Dioxideaerosol samplingcyclonehigh flow rateparticle sizepersonal impactor samplerrespirable dustsilicaX-ray diffraction.

Identifiers

PMID26865560
PMCPMC4815938

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.