ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2018
Laboratory comparison of new high flow rate respirable size-selective sampler.
Article in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2018. 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.
- Classification of asbestos and their nonasbestiform analogues using FTIR and multivariate data analysis.Journal of hazardous materials · 2024Article
- Size Separation of Amosite by Filtration and Shaking Methods.Asbestos and other elongate mineral particles : new and continuing challenges in the 21st century · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
A newly developed high flow rate respirable size-selective cyclone sampler (GK4.162-also known as the Respirable Air Sampling Cyclone Aluminum Large (RASCAL)) was calibrated to determine its optimum operating flow rate. The Health and Safety Laboratory in the United Kingdom and two laboratories from the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health in the United States conducted experiments using two different methods: (1) polydisperse aerosol and time-of-flight direct reading instrument (Aerodynamic Particle Sizer (APS)) and (2) monodisperse aerosol and APS. The measured performance data for the cyclone was assessed against the international respirable convention using the bias map approach. Although the GK4.162 cyclone was tested using different aerosols and detection methods, the results from the three laboratories were generally similar. The recommended flow rate based on the agreement of results from the laboratories was 9.0 L/min.
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.