Literature DB >> 19443852

Field and wind tunnel comparison of four aerosol samplers using agricultural dusts.

Stephen J Reynolds1, Jason Nakatsu, Marvin Tillery, Thomas Keefe, John Mehaffy, Peter S Thorne, Kelley Donham, Matthew Nonnenmann, Vijay Golla, Patrick O'shaughnessy.   

Abstract

Occupational lung disease is a significant problem among agricultural workers exposed to organic dusts. Measurements of exposure in agricultural environments in the USA have traditionally been conducted using 37-mm closed-face cassettes (CFCs) and respirable Cyclones. Inhalable aerosol samplers offer significant improvement for dose estimation studies to reduce respiratory disease. The goals of this study were to determine correction factors between the inhalable samplers (IOM and Button) and the CFC and Cyclone for dusts sampled in livestock buildings and to determine whether these factors vary among livestock types. Determination of these correction factors will allow comparison between inhalable measurements and historical measurements. Ten sets of samples were collected in swine, chicken, turkey, and dairy facilities in both Colorado and Iowa. Pairs of each sampling device were attached to the front and back of a rotating mannequin. Laboratory studies using a still-air chamber and a wind tunnel provided information regarding the effect of wind speed on sampler performance. Overall, the IOM had the lowest coefficient of variation (best precision) and was least affected by changes in wind speed. The performance of the Button was negatively impacted in poultry environments where larger (feather) particulates clogged the holes in the initial screen. The CFC/IOM ratios are important for comparisons between newer and older studies. Wind speed and dust type were both important factors affecting ratios. Based on the field studies (Table 6), a ratio of 0.56 is suggested as a conversion factor for the CFC/IOM (average for all environments because of no statistical difference). Suggested conversion factors for the Button/IOM are swine (0.57), chicken (0.80), turkey (0.53), and dairy (0.67). Any attempt to apply a conversion factor between the Cyclone and inhalable samplers is not recommended.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19443852      PMCID: PMC2723214          DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mep021

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg        ISSN: 0003-4878


  30 in total

1.  Dose-response relationships between occupational aerosol exposures and cross-shift declines of lung function in poultry workers: recommendations for exposure limits.

Authors:  K J Donham; D Cumro; S J Reynolds; J A Merchant
Journal:  J Occup Environ Med       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.162

2.  Worker exposures to particulates, endotoxins, and bioaerosols in two refuse-derived fuel plants.

Authors:  S Mahar; S J Reynolds; P S Thorne
Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J       Date:  1999 Sep-Oct

3.  Performance characteristics of the button personal inhalable aerosol sampler.

Authors:  V Aizenberg; S A Grinshpun; K Willeke; J Smith; P A Baron
Journal:  AIHAJ       Date:  2000 May-Jun

4.  Field comparison of 37-mm closed-face cassettes and IOM samplers.

Authors:  Martine Demange; Peter Görner; Jean-Marie Elcabache; Richard Wrobel
Journal:  Appl Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2002-03

5.  Performance of personal inhalable aerosol samplers in very slowly moving air when facing the aerosol source.

Authors:  O Witschger; S A Grinshpun; S Fauvel; G Basso
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2004-03-02

6.  Field comparison of inhalable aerosol samplers applied in the european rubber manufacturing industry.

Authors:  Frank de Vocht; Daan Huizer; Maarten Prause; Kristina Jakobsson; Beata Peplonska; Kurt Straif; Hans Kromhout
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  2006-02-28       Impact factor: 3.015

7.  Relationship of airborne endotoxin and bacteria levels in pig farms with the lung function and respiratory symptoms of farmers.

Authors:  D Heederik; R Brouwer; K Biersteker; J S Boleij
Journal:  Int Arch Occup Environ Health       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 3.015

8.  A personal cascade impactor: design, evaluation and calibration.

Authors:  K L Rubow; V A Marple; J Olin; M A McCawley
Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J       Date:  1987-06

Review 9.  Hazardous agents in agricultural dusts and methods of evaluation.

Authors:  K J Donham
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  1986       Impact factor: 2.214

10.  Respiratory dysfunction in swine production facility workers: dose-response relationships of environmental exposures and pulmonary function.

Authors:  K J Donham; S J Reynolds; P Whitten; J A Merchant; L Burmeister; W J Popendorf
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 2.214

View more
  6 in total

1.  Assessment of swine worker exposures to dust and endotoxin during hog load-out and power washing.

Authors:  Patrick O'Shaughnessy; Thomas Peters; Kelley Donham; Craig Taylor; Ralph Altmaier; Kevin Kelly
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2012-03-16

2.  Evaluation of the Limulus amebocyte lysate and recombinant factor C assays for assessment of airborne endotoxin.

Authors:  Peter S Thorne; Sarah S Perry; Rena Saito; Patrick T O'Shaughnessy; John Mehaffy; Nervana Metwali; Thomas Keefe; Kelley J Donham; Stephen J Reynolds
Journal:  Appl Environ Microbiol       Date:  2010-06-04       Impact factor: 4.792

3.  Inhalable and Respirable Particulate and Endotoxin Exposures in Kentucky Equine Farms.

Authors:  Jooyeon Hwang; Vijay Golla; Nervana Metwali; Peter S Thorne
Journal:  J Agromedicine       Date:  2019-08-20       Impact factor: 1.675

4.  Concentrations of bioaerosols, odors, and hydrogen sulfide inside and downwind from two types of swine livestock operations.

Authors:  Peter S Thorne; Anne C Ansley; Sarah Spencer Perry
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.155

5.  Wood dust sampling: field evaluation of personal samplers when large particles are present.

Authors:  Taekhee Lee; Martin Harper; James E Slaven; Kiyoung Lee; Roy J Rando; Elizabeth H Maples
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2010-10-29

Review 6.  Review of Workplace Based Aerosol Sampler Comparison Studies, 2004-2020.

Authors:  James Hanlon; Karen S Galea; Steven Verpaele
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2021-06-25       Impact factor: 3.390

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.