ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2016
Calibration of high flow rate thoracic-size selective samplers.
Article in Journal of occupational and environmental 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.
- 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
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
High flow rate respirable size selective samplers, GK4.126 and FSP10 cyclones, were calibrated for thoracic-size selective sampling in two different laboratories. The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) utilized monodisperse ammonium fluorescein particles and scanning electron microscopy to determine the aerodynamic particle size of the monodisperse aerosol. Fluorescein intensity was measured to determine sampling efficiencies of the cyclones. The Health Safety and Laboratory (HSL) utilized a real time particle sizing instrument (Aerodynamic Particle Sizer) and polydisperse glass sphere particles and particle size distributions between the cyclone and reference sampler were compared. Sampling efficiency of the cyclones were compared to the thoracic convention defined by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH)/Comité Européen de Normalisation (CEN)/International Standards Organization (ISO). The GK4.126 cyclone showed minimum bias compared to the thoracic convention at flow rates of 3.5 l min(-1) (NIOSH) and 2.7-3.3 l min(-1) (HSL) and the difference may be from the use of different test systems. In order to collect the most dust and reduce the limit of detection, HSL suggested using the upper end in range (3.3 l min(-1)). A flow rate of 3.4 l min(-1) would be a reasonable compromise, pending confirmation in other laboratories. The FSP10 cyclone showed minimum bias at the flow rate of 4.0 l min(-1) in the NIOSH laboratory test. The high flow rate thoracic-size selective samplers might be used for higher sample mass collection in order to meet analytical limits of quantification.
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.