Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34791042›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2022

Use of Low-Cost Particle Counters for Cotton Dust Exposure Assessment in Textile Mills in Low- and Middle-Income Countries.

Asaad Ahmed Nafees, Abdul Rehman Iqbal, Paul Cullinan, Sara De Matteis, Peter Burney, Sean Semple

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT03738202 (Multifaceted Intervention Package for Protection Against Cotton Dust Exposure Among Textile Workers - a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial), which is not on this 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.

NCT03738202 nacompletednot on this map

Multifaceted Intervention Package for Protection Against Cotton Dust Exposure Among Textile Workers - a Cluster Randomised Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorAga Khan UniversityRan2019 to 2022Enrolled2,031ConditionsOccupational Diseases, Occupational Lung DiseaseArmsMultifaceted intervention package
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Assessment of the exposure to PMEnvironmental monitoring and assessment · 2022
    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

6 authors.

Asaad Ahmed NafeesDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.ORCID 0000-0001-8174-1625
Abdul Rehman IqbalDepartment of Community Health Sciences, Aga Khan University, Karachi, Pakistan.
Paul CullinanNational Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI), Imperial College London, London, UK.
Sara De MatteisNational Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI), Imperial College London, London, UK.
Peter BurneyNational Heart and Lung Institute (NHLI), Imperial College London, London, UK.
Sean SempleInstitute for Social Marketing and Health Research, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0462-7295

Funding

Wellcome Trust 206757/Z/17/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveThere is a lack of consensus on methods for cotton dust measurement in the textile industry, and techniques vary between countries-relying mostly on cumbersome, traditional approaches. We undertook comparisons of standard, gravimetric methods with low-cost optical particle counters for personal and area dust measurements in textile mills in Pakistan.

methodsWe included male textile workers from the weaving sections of seven cotton mills in Karachi. We used the Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) sampler with a Casella Apex 2 standard pump and the Purple Air (PA-II-SD) for measuring personal exposures to inhalable airborne particles (n = 31). We used the Dylos DC1700 particle counter, in addition to the two above, for area-level measurements (n = 29).

resultsThere were no significant correlations between the IOM and PA for personal dust measurements using the original (r = -0.15, P = 0.4) or log-transformed data (r = -0.32, P = 0.07). Similarly, there were no significant correlations when comparing the IOM with either of the particle counters (PA and Dylos) for area dust measurements, using the original (r = -0.07, P = 0.7; r = 0.10, P = 0.6) or log-transformed data (r = -0.09, P = 0.6; r = 0.07, P = 0.7).

conclusionOur findings show a lack of correlation between the gravimetric method and the use of particle counters in both personal and area measurements of cotton dust, precluding their use for measuring occupational exposures to airborne dust in textile mills. There continues to be a need to develop low-cost instruments to help textile industries in low- and middle-income countries to perform cotton dust exposure assessment.

Indexed as

Air Pollutants, OccupationalOccupational ExposureDeveloping CountriesDustHumansMaleTextilesAir Pollutants, OccupationalDustcotton fibresdeveloping countriesdustexposure assessmenttextile industry

Identifiers

PMID34791042
PMCPMC9030129

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.