ArticleAnnals of work exposures and health2026
Emission rates of respirable crystalline silica and dust from engineered stone fabrication.
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. 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
Abstract
Engineered stone, a composite material containing high levels of crystalline silica, has led to a surge in silicosis among workers who perform cutting, grinding, and other finishing tasks. To improve our understanding of respirable crystalline silica (RCS) and respirable dust exposures and exposure determinants for these tasks, this study extracted data from previously published studies and (i) calculated the emission rate of respirable dust and RCS (mass per time) from experimental simulation studies, (ii) assessed whether control technology or task are determinants of emission rate, and (iii) applied a 2-zone mathematical model to estimate RCS exposures using the calculated emission rates and evaluated the model predictions against task-duration exposure measurements. Emission rates were calculated from 4 published experimental simulation studies, and regression analysis showed that emission rates of RCS were positively associated with slab crystalline silica content and negatively associated with the use of control technologies. Near-field RCS concentrations predicted by model tended to underestimate exposures, but the distribution overlapped with field-based exposure measurements. The model performance is reasonable, though further simulation studies or field-based studies with detailed exposure determinant data can be used to improve emission rate estimates and model performance. The emission rates calculated in this study can be used to reconstruct past exposures for epidemiologic and risk analyses, and assist with attribution of silicosis and lung cancer to work-related causes. A multifaceted approach is necessary to ensure that employers are providing workplaces that eliminate hazardous exposures to RCS and other components of engineered stone.
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.