ReviewRadiation and environmental biophysics2026
NORM dust intake: comparison of personal air sampling and bioassays.
Review in Radiation and environmental biophysics, 2026. 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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Intake of naturally occurring radioactive materials (NORM), particularly the inhalation of thorium-bearing dust in mineral sand operations, has traditionally been assessed via personal air sampling (PAS). However, data from bioassay studies suggest that the actual intake determined via PAS may be underestimated. This review integrates thorium intake estimates derived from historical bioassay datasets, such as urine, faeces, lung counting, and thoron-in-breath tests, with historical PAS data. The findings indicated that bioassay-based predictions of intake were consistently greater, with mean bioassay-to-PAS intake ratios ranging from 2.6 to 4.2. The contributing factors to this discrepancy include biokinetic model uncertainties, potential dust sampler bias, the PAS strategy, high variability of exposure within similar exposure groups (SEGs), self-absorption of alpha particles during the radiometric analysis of filtered dust samples, and nonaccounting for respiratory protection. This review suggests improvements to current PAS-based dose assessments, including sampling and analysis protocols. We recommend that PAS be supplemented by targeted bioassay monitoring, where feasible, to improve dose estimation and worker 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.