ArticleSilica and associated respirable mineral particles2014
Performance of High-Flow-Rate Samplers for Respirable Crystalline Silica Measurement Under Field Conditions: Preliminary Study.
Article in Silica and associated respirable mineral particles, 2014. 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, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Silica Measurement with High Flow Rate Respirable Size Selective Samplers: A Field Study.The Annals of occupational 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
4 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
Restoration stone work regularly involves work with high-silica-content materials (e.g., sandstone), but low-silica-content materials (<2 % quartz) such as limestone and lime mortar are also used. A combination of short sample duration and low silica content makes the quantification of worker exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) difficult. This problem will be further compounded by the introduction of lower occupational exposure standards for RCS. The objective of this work was to determine whether higher-flow samplers might be an effective tool in characterizing lower RCS concentrations. A short study was performed to evaluate the performance of three high-flow samplers (FSP10, CIP10-R, and GK2.69) using side-by-side sampling with low-flow samplers (SIMPEDS and 10-mm nylon cyclones) for RCS exposure measurement at a restoration stonemasonry field site. A total of 19 side-by-side sample replicates for each high-flow and low-flow sampler pair were collected from work tasks involving limestone and sandstone.
resultsMost of the RCS (quartz) masses collected with the high-flow-rate samplers were above the limit of detection (62 % to 84 %) relative to the low-flow-rate samplers (58 % to 78 %). The average of the respirable mass concentration ratios for CIP10-R/SIMPEDS, GK2.69/10-mm nylon, FSP10/SIMPEDS, and FSP10/10-mm nylon pairs and the range of the quartz concentration ratios for the CIP10-R/SIMPEDS, CIP10-R/10-mm nylon, GK2.69/10-mm nylon, FSP10/SIMPEDS, and FSP10/10-mm nylon pairs included unity with an average close to unity, indicating no likely difference between the reported values for each sampler. Workers reported problems related to the weight of the sampling pumps for the high-flow-rate samplers. Respirable mass concentration data suggest that the high-flow-rate samplers evaluated would be appropriate for sampling respirable dust concentrations during restoration stone work. Results from the comparison of average quartz concentration ratios between high-and low-flow samplers suggest that the higher mass collected by the high-flow-rate samplers did not interfere with the quartz measurement. A sig-nificant portion of the data collected with the high-flow-rate samplers (>82 %) were greater than the limit of detection, which indicates that these samplers are suitable for quantifying exposures, even with low-quartz materials.
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.