ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2026
Analysis of the practical effectiveness of respiratory protection programs in preventing over-exposure to respirable crystalline silica in tunnel construction.
Article in Annals of work exposures and health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Determinants of respirable crystalline silica exposure in Australian tunnelling.Annals of work exposures and health · 2026Observational
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
introductionTunnel construction activities are associated with exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS), placing workers at risk of silicosis and lung cancer. Respiratory protective equipment (RPE) is frequently relied upon to supplement other control measures to reduce exposure. However, the practical effectiveness of RPE in preventing over-exposure can be compromised by a range of factors, reducing its expected level of protection.
objectiveTo identify and explore the factors that influence the practical effectiveness of RPE programs in tunnel construction environments.
methodsA retrospective analysis of exposure assessments between 2018 and 2024, prepared by occupational hygienists across multiple Australian tunnel construction projects, was performed. The focus was on instances where RPE was used but where RCS exposures were still judged by the occupational hygienist to have exceeded the occupational exposure limit (OEL) in place at the time. Contributing factors were identified and categorised.
resultsOccupational hygienists identified six factors that impacted the practical effectiveness of RPE when RCS was measured above the OEL. The most common factor was that the RPE provided to the worker had an insufficient minimum protection factor to reduce exposure to levels below the OEL. Other factors included the absence of fit testing, the presence of facial hair, and intermittent or non-use of the RPE. In an average of 17% of cases where RCS exposure exceeded the OEL, occupational hygienists judged the RPE to be ineffective in adequately reducing exposure levels.
conclusionThe findings highlight organisational and individual factors that lead to a gap between theoretical performance and practical effectiveness of RPE programs. The reasons underlying these deficiencies, including why RPE was not worn, not correctly used, or why lower-grade protection was issued, remain unclear. Providing workers with higher levels of protection, such as powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs), would likely mitigate many of these challenges, which supports the growing shift toward PAPR adoption in the tunnelling sector.
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.