ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2025
Are we underestimating exposures from NORM dust?
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- NORM dust intake: comparison of personal air sampling and bioassays.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2026Review
- Thorium lung burdens of NORM workers revisited.Radiation protection dosimetry · 2026Article
- Overview of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) in mineral processing industries and consideration of ionising radiation in life cycle assessment (LCA) - PART II. NORM impact assessment.Radiation and environmental biophysics · 2026Review
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The inhalation of dust containing naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM) associated with mining and mineral processing operations may lead to potential long-term health impacts, including cancer and chronic lung disease, due to alpha particle-emitting radionuclides. This study evaluates the effectiveness of air sampling strategies used to estimate radiation doses from NORM exposure, with a focus on the Western Australian minerals industry. The objectives were to review current sampling and analysis protocols, identify factors contributing to over- or underestimation of dose, and propose adjustments to improve intake assessments. A review of research and guidelines applicable to NORM dust exposure was conducted, and the sampling efficiency of the government-recommended 7-hole and IOM sample heads was compared, considering measured dust particle size distributions. Key inhalation-related parameters, including use of similar exposure group (SEG) mean concentrations, worker breathing rates, median dust particle size, and intake-to-dose conversion factors, were analysed to assess their influence on intake calculations. The findings indicate that use of the 7-hole sampler, currently recommended by local guidelines, may underestimate airborne radioactivity concentrations by 2-fold or more, primarily due to reduced sampling efficiency for larger particles. Standard default assumptions for breathing rates and aerosol characteristics used to convert the measured concentrations to intake and dose may further contribute to underestimation. This study recommends updating air sampling methods and dose assessment protocols to better align with workplace-specific exposure conditions and improve worker health protection in NORM industries.
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.