Field comparison of inhalable and total dust samplers for assessing airborne dust in swine confinement barns.

Bernardo Z Predicala, Ronaldo G Maghirang
{"title":"Field comparison of inhalable and total dust samplers for assessing airborne dust in swine confinement barns.","authors":"Bernardo Z Predicala,&nbsp;Ronaldo G Maghirang","doi":"10.1080/10473220301375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Inhalable and total dust sampling devices were compared for evaluating airborne dust in swine confinement buildings. Measurements from three swine facilities (n = 77 paired means) were obtained by area sampling using the IOM (Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, U.K.) inhalable dust sampler and a 37-mm closed-face total (TCF) dust sampler. The overall geometric mean IOM concentration (1.18 mg/m(3), geometric standard deviation [GSD] = 2.00) was significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the overall geometric mean TCF concentration (1.08 mg/m(3), GSD = 1.98). Regression analysis with IOM and TCF values as independent and dependent variables, respectively, yielded a factor of 0.86 (+/-0.04 95% confidence interval), which can be used to estimate TCF values from the IOM measurements. Additional paired sampling data were obtained to compare the following pairs of dust samplers: (1) IOM sampler and conical inhalable sampler (CIS) (n = 20 paired means), (2) IOM and open-face total (TOF) dust samplers (n = 14), (3) CIS and TCF samplers (n = 19), and (4) TCF and TOF samplers (n = 8). Paired t-tests showed significantly (P < 0.05) higher IOM concentrations than the CIS sampler; no significant difference (P > 0.05) was found for the other three pairs compared. It may be necessary to establish work-specific conversion coefficients to obtain a reasonable estimate of worker exposure to total dust from measurements using other types of dust sampling devices.</p>","PeriodicalId":8182,"journal":{"name":"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene","volume":"18 9","pages":"694-701"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2003-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1080/10473220301375","citationCount":"22","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Applied occupational and environmental hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10473220301375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 22

Abstract

Inhalable and total dust sampling devices were compared for evaluating airborne dust in swine confinement buildings. Measurements from three swine facilities (n = 77 paired means) were obtained by area sampling using the IOM (Institute of Occupational Medicine, Edinburgh, U.K.) inhalable dust sampler and a 37-mm closed-face total (TCF) dust sampler. The overall geometric mean IOM concentration (1.18 mg/m(3), geometric standard deviation [GSD] = 2.00) was significantly greater (P < 0.05) than the overall geometric mean TCF concentration (1.08 mg/m(3), GSD = 1.98). Regression analysis with IOM and TCF values as independent and dependent variables, respectively, yielded a factor of 0.86 (+/-0.04 95% confidence interval), which can be used to estimate TCF values from the IOM measurements. Additional paired sampling data were obtained to compare the following pairs of dust samplers: (1) IOM sampler and conical inhalable sampler (CIS) (n = 20 paired means), (2) IOM and open-face total (TOF) dust samplers (n = 14), (3) CIS and TCF samplers (n = 19), and (4) TCF and TOF samplers (n = 8). Paired t-tests showed significantly (P < 0.05) higher IOM concentrations than the CIS sampler; no significant difference (P > 0.05) was found for the other three pairs compared. It may be necessary to establish work-specific conversion coefficients to obtain a reasonable estimate of worker exposure to total dust from measurements using other types of dust sampling devices.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于评估猪舍空气粉尘的可吸入和总粉尘取样器的现场比较。
比较了可吸入粉尘和总粉尘取样装置对猪舍空气粉尘的评价。通过使用IOM(英国爱丁堡职业医学研究所)可吸入粉尘采样器和37毫米封闭式总粉尘采样器进行区域采样,获得了三个养猪场(n = 77配对平均值)的测量结果。IOM总几何平均浓度(1.18 mg/m(3),几何标准差[GSD] = 2.00)显著高于TCF总几何平均浓度(1.08 mg/m(3), GSD = 1.98) (P < 0.05)。以IOM和TCF值分别作为自变量和因变量进行回归分析,得出因子0.86(+/-0.04 95%置信区间),可用于估算IOM测量的TCF值。另外获得配对采样数据,比较以下对粉尘采样器:(1)IOM采样器与锥形可吸入采样器(CIS) (n = 20对均值),(2)IOM采样器与露天总粉尘(TOF)采样器(n = 14), (3) CIS采样器与TCF采样器(n = 19), (4) TCF采样器与TOF采样器(n = 8)。配对t检验显示IOM浓度显著高于CIS采样器(P < 0.05);其余3对比较无显著差异(P > 0.05)。可能有必要建立特定于工作的转换系数,以便通过使用其他类型的粉尘取样装置进行测量,获得对工人接触总粉尘的合理估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
A Field Evaluation of Mandelic Acid in Urine as a Compliance Monitor for Styrene Exposure The Impact of Boundary Layer Separation on Local Exhaust Design and Worker Exposure Air-Lead Particle Sizes in Battery Manufacturing: Potential Effects on the OSHA Compliance Model Risk Assessment for Carcinogens: A Comparison of Approaches of the ACGIH and the EPA Industrial Ventilation News Digest
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1