Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38401569›Full record

ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2024

Development of handling energy factors for use of dustiness data in exposure assessment modelling.

Ana Sofia Fonseca, Carla Ribalta, Neeraj Shandilya, Wouter Fransman, Keld Alstrup Jensen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

5 authors.

Ana Sofia FonsecaNational Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE), Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.ORCID 0000-0002-1424-6365
Carla RibaltaNational Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE), Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.
Neeraj ShandilyaTNO, Risk Assessment of Products In Development, Utrechtseweg 48, 3704 HE Zeist, Netherlands.ORCID 0000-0003-3328-8517
Wouter FransmanTNO, Risk Assessment of Products In Development, Utrechtseweg 48, 3704 HE Zeist, Netherlands.
Keld Alstrup JensenNational Research Centre for the Working Environment (NRCWE), Lersø Parkallé 105, DK-2100 Copenhagen, Denmark.

Funding

European Union's Horizon 2020 686239European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme 686239
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Several exposure assessment models use dustiness as an input parameter for scaling or estimating exposure during powder handling. Use of different dustiness methods will result in considerable differences in the dustiness values as they are based on different emission generation principles. EN17199:2019 offers 4 different dustiness test methods considering different dust release scenarios (e.g. powder pouring, mixing and gentle agitation, and vibration). Conceptually, the dustiness value by a given method can be multiplied with a scenario-specific modifier, called a handling energy factor (Hi), that allows conversion of a dustiness value to a release constant. Therefore, a Hi, scaling the effective mechanical energy in the process to the energy supplied in the specific dustiness test, needs to be applied. To improve the accuracy in predictive exposure modelling, we derived experimental Hi to be used in exposure algorithms considering both the mass- and number-based dust release fraction determined by the EN17199-3 continuous drop (CD) and the EN17199-4 small rotating drum (SRD) test methods. Three materials were used to evaluate the relationship between dustiness and dust levels during pouring powder from different heights in a controlled environment. The results showed increasing scatter and difference between the Hi derived for the 2 test methods with increasing pouring height. Nearly all the Hi values obtained for both SRD and CD were <1 indicating that the dustiness tests involved more energy input than the simulated pouring activity and consequently de-agglomeration and dust generation were higher. This effect was most pronounced in CD method showing that SRD mechanistically resembles more closely the powder pouring.

Indexed as

Air Pollutants, OccupationalOccupational ExposureDustHumansPowdersAir Pollutants, OccupationalDustPowderscontinuous dropdustinessexposure assessmentexposure modellinghandling powdersnanomaterialssmall rotating drum

Identifiers

PMID38401569
PMCPMC10941727

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.