Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33228125›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2020

Exploring Evaluation Variables for Low-Cost Particulate Matter Monitors to Assess Occupational Exposure.

Sander Ruiter, Eelco Kuijpers, John Saunders, John Snawder, Nick Warren, Jean-Philippe Gorce, Marcus Blom, Tanja Krone, Delphine Bard, Anjoeka Pronk and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article 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, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–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, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
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

11 authors.

Sander RuiterNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Eelco KuijpersNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0002-9033-7605
John SaundersHealth and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Science and Research Centre, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK.
John SnawderCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1090 Tusculum Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA.
Nick WarrenHealth and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Science and Research Centre, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK.
Jean-Philippe GorceHealth and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Science and Research Centre, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK.
Marcus BlomNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Tanja KroneNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-4902-9907
Delphine BardHealth and Safety Executive (HSE), HSE Science and Research Centre, Harpur Hill, Buxton SK17 9JN, UK.
Anjoeka PronkNetherlands Organization for Applied Scientific Research (TNO), 3584 CB Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Emanuele CaudaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), 1090 Tusculum Avenue, Cincinnati, OH 45226, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

(1) Background: Small, lightweight, low-cost optical particulate matter (PM) monitors are becoming popular in the field of occupational exposure monitoring, because these devices allow for real-time static measurements to be collected at multiple locations throughout a work site as well as being used as wearables providing personal exposure estimates. Prior to deployment, devices should be evaluated to optimize and quantify measurement accuracy. However, this can turn out to be difficult, as no standardized methods are yet available and different deployments may require different evaluation procedures. To gain insight in the relevance of different variables that may affect the monitor readings, six PM monitors were selected based on current availability and evaluated in the laboratory; (2) Methods: Existing strategies that were judged appropriate for the evaluation of PM monitors were reviewed and seven evaluation variables were selected, namely the type of dust, within- and between-device variations, nature of the power supply, temperature, relative humidity, and exposure pattern (peak and constant). Each variable was tested and analyzed individually and, if found to affect the readings significantly, included in a final correction model specific to each monitor. Finally, the accuracy for each monitor after correction was calculated; (3) Results: The reference materials and exposure patterns were found to be main factors needing correction for most monitors. One PM monitor was found to be sufficiently accurate at concentrations up to 2000 µg/m

Indexed as

Air PollutantsEnvironmental MonitoringOccupational ExposureParticulate MatterHumansAir PollutantsParticulate Matterevaluationexposure monitoringlow-cost monitorsoccupationalparticulate mattersensorswearables

Identifiers

PMID33228125
PMCPMC7699371

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.