Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Method-induced misclassification for a respirable dust sampled using ISO/ACGIH/CEN criteria.

D L Johnson1, N A Esmen

  • 1Aerosols Research Laboratory, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Centre, PO Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73190, USA. David-Johnson@ouhsc.edu

The Annals of Occupational Hygiene
|January 14, 2004
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Susceptibility of Rice to Oebalus pugnax (F.) (Hemiptera: Pentatomidae) Feeding at Different Levels of Grain Maturity and Impacts on Insecticide Termination.

Journal of economic entomology·2019
Same author

Experimental identification of diffusive coupling using 2D NMR.

Physical review letters·2014
Same author

Application of genomic evaluation to dairy cattle in New Zealand.

Journal of dairy science·2014
Same author

CCR2 antagonism in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: a randomized, placebo-controlled study.

Diabetes, obesity & metabolism·2014
Same author

Studies on sarkomycin.

Antibiotics & chemotherapy (Northfield, Ill.)·2014
Same author

BIOMEDICAL INSTRUMENTATION FOR PHYSIOLOGY.

A listing of research in the cardiovascular field·2014
Same journal

Response to Article by Prof. Hans Kromhout, Hygiene Without Numbers.

The Annals of occupational hygiene·2016
Same journal

Development of an Interception Glove Sampler for Skin Exposures to Aromatic Isocyanates.

The Annals of occupational hygiene·2016
Same journal

When Are Risk Analyses on Job Titles Informative?

The Annals of occupational hygiene·2016
Same journal

Differential Counting of Asbestos Using Phase Contrast and Fluorescence Microscopy.

The Annals of occupational hygiene·2016
Same journal

The Validity and Applicability of Using a Generic Exposure Assessment Model for Occupational Exposure to Nano-Objects and Their Aggregates and Agglomerates.

The Annals of occupational hygiene·2016
Same journal

A New Miniature Respirable Sampler for In-mask Sampling: Part 1-Particle Size Selection Performance.

The Annals of occupational hygiene·2016
See all related articles

Single cut measurements for respirable dust exposure often misclassify workers

Area of Science:

  • Occupational Hygiene and Environmental Health
  • Aerosol Science and Technology
  • Respiratory Physiology

Background:

  • Current occupational hygiene practices rely on single cut measurements for respirable dust exposure classification.
  • Previous research indicated significant discrepancies between measured and actual pulmonary tissue doses of respirable dust.
  • International standards (ISO/ACGIH/CEN) define criteria for single cut respirable dust measurements.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To evaluate the extent of worker exposure misclassification using single cut respirable dust measurements.
  • To compare dose-based exposure classifications with those derived from standard single cut measurement criteria.
  • To assess misclassification rates across various aerosol size distributions and breathing patterns.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • Simulated 12 generalized aerosol size distributions representing common generation methods.
  • Employed models for sampler penetration and pulmonary deposition.
  • Conducted Monte Carlo simulations to compare actual pulmonary tissue dose with ideal sampler estimates.

Main Results:

  • Severe exposure misclassification was observed, particularly for aerosols with mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) less than 1 micrometer (approx. 100% misclassification).
  • Significant misclassification (65-95%) also occurred for aerosols with MMAD between 5-15 micrometers.
  • Moderate misclassification (<20%) was noted only for very coarse aerosols (MMAD > 15 micrometers); oral and nasal breathing patterns showed similar misclassification rates.

Conclusions:

  • Single cut measurement methods for respirable dust lead to substantial exposure misclassification.
  • The accuracy of exposure assessment is highly dependent on the aerosol's particle size distribution.
  • Current methodologies may inadequately protect workers from hazardous dust exposures, especially for smaller particle sizes.