Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32962023›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Recent Advances in Occupational Exposure Assessment of Aerosols.

Martin Harper

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

1 author.

Martin HarperZefon International, Inc., 5350 SW 1st Lane, Ocala, FL 34474, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Exposure science is underpinned by characterization (measurement) of exposures. In this article, six recent advances in exposure characterization by sampling and analysis are reviewed as tools in the occupational exposure assessment of aerosols. Three advances discussed in detail are (1) recognition and inclusion of sampler wall deposits; (2) development of a new sampling and analytical procedure for respirable crystalline silica that allows non-destructive field analysis at the end of the sampling period; and (3) development of a new sampler to collect the portion of sub-300 nm aerodynamic diameter particles that would deposit in human airways. Three additional developments are described briefly: (4) a size-selective aerosol sampler that allows the collection of multiple physiologically-relevant size fractions; (5) a miniaturized pump and versatile sampling head to meet multiple size-selective sampling criteria; and (6) a novel method of sampling bioaerosols including viruses while maintaining viability. These recent developments are placed in the context of the historical evolution in sampling and analytical developments from 1900 to the present day. While these are not the only advances in exposure characterization, or exposure assessment techniques, they provide an illustration of how technological advances are adding more tools to our toolkit. The review concludes with a number of recommended areas for future research, including expansion of real-time and end-of-shift on-site measurement, development of samplers that operate at higher flow-rates to ensure measurement at lowered limit values, and development of procedures that accurately distinguish aerosol and vapor phases of semi-volatile substances.

Indexed as

AerosolsAir Pollutants, OccupationalOccupational ExposureDustEnvironmental MonitoringHumansParticle SizeAerosolsAir Pollutants, OccupationalDustaerosolsair samplingexposure assessment

Identifiers

PMID32962023
PMCPMC7559367

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.