ArticleJournal of occupational and environmental hygiene2021
Particle-phase collection efficiency of the OVS and IFV Pro personal pesticide samplers.
Article in Journal of occupational and environmental hygiene, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The inhalable aerosol sampling criterion has been developed to characterize the efficiency of particles entering the nose and/or mouth. However, pesticides can exist in the air in both vapor and particulate phases, which complicates exposure assessments. The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has established an IFV (inhalable fraction and vapor) endnote for chemicals such as many pesticides that need to be evaluated for both their inhalable fraction and vapor concentrations to fully characterize worker exposures. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the particle-phase collection efficiency of a commonly-used pesticide sampler, the OSHA Versatile Sampler (OVS) as well as a recently developed sampler, the IFV Pro. The OVS was not designed as an inhalable aerosol sampler, whereas the IFV Pro contains a sampling head scaled to that of the Institute of Medicine (IOM) sampler, which is known to closely follow the inhalable sampling criterion. Laboratory experiments involving a vertical-flow, low-velocity scheme, and finely graded test dusts with known median aerodynamic diameter were used to determine sampler collection efficiencies. The collection efficiency of the OVS was evaluated as recommended by the manufacturer and after two modifications made to potentially improve its collection efficiency. The OVS was found to substantially under-sample relative to the inhalable criterion, and the two modifications did not provide substantial improvements to the original configuration. Conversely, the collection efficiency of the IFV Pro was found to compare closely to that of the IOM, although collecting 9% more mass. When applied side-by-side with the OVS sampler in a chamber into which ethylene glycol was sprayed as a proxy for a pesticide, the IFV Pro collected an average of 1.9-fold more mass than the OVS for the same flow rate and sample time.
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.