Literature DB >> 27792469

Performance of prototype high-flow inhalable dust sampler in a livestock production facility.

T Renée Anthony1, Changjie Cai1, John Mehaffy2, Darrah Sleeth3, John Volckens2.   

Abstract

A high-flow inhalable sampler, designed for operational flow rates up to 10 L/min using computer simulations and examined in wind tunnel experiments, was evaluated in the field. This prototype sampler was deployed in collocation with an IOM (the benchmark standard sampler) in a swine farrowing building to examine the sampling performance for assessing concentrations of inhalable particulate mass and endotoxin. Paired samplers were deployed for 24 hr on 19 days over a 3-month period. On each sampling day, the paired samplers were deployed at three fixed locations and data were analyzed to identify agreement and to examine systematic biases between concentrations measured by these samplers. Thirty-six paired gravimetric samples were analyzed; insignificant, unsubstantial differences between concentrations were identified between the two samplers (p = 0.16; mean difference 0.03 mg/m3). Forty-four paired samples were available for endotoxin analysis, and a significant (p = 0.001) difference in endotoxin concentration was identified: the prototype sampler, on average, had 120 EU/m3 more endotoxin than did the IOM samples. Since the same gravimetric samples were analyzed for endotoxin content, the endotoxin difference is likely attributable to differences in endotoxin extraction. The prototype's disposable thin-film polycarbonate capsule was included with the filter in the 1-hr extraction procedure while the internal plastic cassette of the IOM required a rinse procedure that is susceptible to dust losses. Endotoxin concentrations measured with standard plastic IOM inserts that follow this rinsing procedure may underestimate the true endotoxin exposure concentrations. The maximum concentrations in the study (1.55 mg/m3 gravimetric, 2328 EU/m3 endotoxin) were lower than other agricultural or industrial environments. Future work should explore the performance of the prototype sampler in dustier environments, where concentrations approach particulates not otherwise specified (PNOS) limits of 10 mg/m3, including using the prototype as a personal sampler.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Aerosol; IOM; agricultural exposure; endotoxin; low cost

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 27792469      PMCID: PMC5503137          DOI: 10.1080/15459624.2016.1240872

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg        ISSN: 1545-9624            Impact factor:   2.155


  13 in total

1.  Weighing imprecision and handleability of the sampling cassettes of the IOM sampler for inhalable dust.

Authors:  G Lidén; G Bergman
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2001-04

2.  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

3.  Solid versus liquid particle sampling efficiency of three personal aerosol samplers when facing the wind.

Authors:  Kirsten A Koehler; T Renee Anthony; Michael Van Dyke; John Volckens
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2011-09-29

4.  Sampling efficiency of modified 37-mm sampling cassettes using computational fluid dynamics.

Authors:  T Renée Anthony; Darrah Sleeth; John Volckens
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2016       Impact factor: 2.155

5.  Evaluation of a standardized micro-vacuum sampling method for collection of surface dust.

Authors:  Kevin Ashley; Gregory T Applegate; Tamara J Wise; Joseph E Fernback; Michael J Goldcamp
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 2.155

6.  Exposure to inhalable dust and endotoxin among Danish pig farmers affected by work tasks and stable characteristics.

Authors:  Ioannis Basinas; Vivi Schlünssen; Hisamitsu Takai; Dick Heederik; Øyvind Omland; Inge M Wouters; Torben Sigsgaard; Hans Kromhout
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2013-06-22

Review 7.  Comparing methods of measurements.

Authors:  J Ludbrook
Journal:  Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol       Date:  1997-02       Impact factor: 2.557

8.  A Simple and Disposable Sampler for Inhalable Aerosol.

Authors:  Christian L'Orange; Kimberly Anderson; Darrah Sleeth; T Renée Anthony; John Volckens
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2015-10-14

9.  Field comparison of three inhalable samplers (IOM, PGP-GSP 3.5 and Button) for welding fumes.

Authors:  Agurtzane Zugasti; Natividad Montes; José M Rojo; M José Quintana
Journal:  J Environ Monit       Date:  2011-10-28

10.  Assessment of increased sampling pump flow rates in a disposable, inhalable aerosol sampler.

Authors:  Justin Stewart; Darrah K Sleeth; Rod G Handy; Leon F Pahler; T Renee Anthony; John Volckens
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2017-03       Impact factor: 2.155

View more
  4 in total

1.  Particle Concentrations in Occupational Settings Measured with a Nanoparticle Respiratory Deposition (NRD) Sampler.

Authors:  Larissa V Stebounova; Natalia I Gonzalez-Pech; Jae Hong Park; T Renee Anthony; Vicki H Grassian; Thomas M Peters
Journal:  Ann Work Expo Health       Date:  2018-07-06       Impact factor: 2.179

2.  A comparison of respirable crystalline silica concentration measurements using a direct-on-filter Fourier transform infrared (FT-IR) transmission method vs. a traditional laboratory X-ray diffraction method.

Authors:  Julie F Hart; Daniel A Autenrieth; Emanuele Cauda; Lauren Chubb; Terry M Spear; Siobhan Wock; Scott Rosenthal
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2018-10       Impact factor: 2.155

3.  Performance evaluation of disposable inhalable aerosol sampler at a copper electrorefinery.

Authors:  Eun Gyung Lee; Peter J Grimson; William P Chisholm; Michael L Kashon; Xinjian He; Christian L'Orange; John Volckens
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2019-02-22       Impact factor: 2.155

Review 4.  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

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.