Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34564352›Full record

ArticleToxics2021

Evaluation of One- and Two-Box Models as Particle Exposure Prediction Tools at Industrial Scale.

Carla Ribalta, Ana López-Lilao, Ana Sofia Fonseca, Alexander Christian Østerskov Jensen, Keld Alstrup Jensen, Eliseo Monfort, Mar Viana

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Toxics, 2021. 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

7 authors.

Carla RibaltaThe National Research Center for Work Environment (NRCWE), DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-0842-5842
Ana López-LilaoInstitute of Ceramic Technology (ITC)-AICE, Campus Universitario Riu Sec, Universitat Jaume I, 12006 Castellón, Spain.
Ana Sofia FonsecaThe National Research Center for Work Environment (NRCWE), DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1424-6365
Alexander Christian Østerskov JensenThe National Research Center for Work Environment (NRCWE), DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0003-0518-2993
Keld Alstrup JensenThe National Research Center for Work Environment (NRCWE), DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-2764-3634
Eliseo MonfortInstitute of Ceramic Technology (ITC)-AICE, Campus Universitario Riu Sec, Universitat Jaume I, 12006 Castellón, Spain.
Mar VianaInstitute of Environmental Assessment and Water Research (IDAEA-CSIC), 08034 Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0002-4073-3802

Funding

Agència de Gestió d'Ajuts Universitaris i de Recerca AGAUR 2017 SGR41Danish Government FFIKA, Focused Research Effort on Chemicals in the Working EnvironmentMinisterio de Ciencia e Innovación CEX2018-000794-SMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad CGL2015-66777-C2-1-R, 2-RMinisterio de Economía y Competitividad RTI2018-098095-B-C21
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One- and two-box models have been pointed out as useful tools for modelling indoor particle exposure. However, model performance still needs further testing if they are to be implemented as trustworthy tools for exposure assessment. The objective of this work is to evaluate the performance, applicability and reproducibility of one- and two-box models on real-world industrial scenarios. A study on filling of seven materials in three filling lines with different levels of energy and mitigation strategies was used. Inhalable and respirable mass concentrations were calculated with one- and two-box models. The continuous drop and rotating drum methods were used for emission rate calculation, and ranges from a one-at-a-time methodology were applied for local exhaust ventilation efficiency and inter-zonal air flows. When using both dustiness methods, large differences were observed for modelled inhalable concentrations but not for respirable, which showed the importance to study the linkage between dustiness and processes. Higher model accuracy (ratio modelled vs. measured concentrations 0.5-5) was obtained for the two- (87%) than the one-box model (53%). Large effects on modelled concentrations were seen when local exhausts ventilation and inter-zonal variations where parametrized in the models. However, a certain degree of variation (10-20%) seems acceptable, as similar conclusions are reached.

Indexed as

dustiness indexemission rateexposure assessmenthandling energy factorindoor aerosol modellingmass-balance modelsoccupational exposure

Identifiers

PMID34564352
PMCPMC8471509

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.