Field and wind tunnel comparison of four aerosol samplers using agricultural dusts
- PMID: 19443852
- PMCID: PMC2723214
- DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/mep021
Field and wind tunnel comparison of four aerosol samplers using agricultural dusts
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.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Review of Workplace Based Aerosol Sampler Comparison Studies, 2004-2020.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun 25;18(13):6819. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136819. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. PMID: 34202035 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Performance of personal inhalable aerosol samplers in very slowly moving air when facing the aerosol source.Ann Occup Hyg. 2004 Jun;48(4):351-68. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meh006. Epub 2004 Mar 2. Ann Occup Hyg. 2004. PMID: 15191944
-
Laboratory study of selected personal inhalable aerosol samplers.Ann Occup Hyg. 2010 Mar;54(2):165-87. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mep079. Epub 2010 Feb 10. Ann Occup Hyg. 2010. PMID: 20147627
-
An evaluation of total and inhalable samplers for the collection of wood dust in three wood products industries.J Environ Monit. 2002 Oct;4(5):648-56. doi: 10.1039/b202857n. J Environ Monit. 2002. PMID: 12400909
-
Review of Published Laboratory-Based Aerosol Sampler Efficiency, Performance and Comparison Studies (1994-2021).Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Dec 24;20(1):267. doi: 10.3390/ijerph20010267. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022. PMID: 36612588 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
Review of Workplace Based Aerosol Sampler Comparison Studies, 2004-2020.Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021 Jun 25;18(13):6819. doi: 10.3390/ijerph18136819. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021. PMID: 34202035 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Wood dust sampling: field evaluation of personal samplers when large particles are present.Ann Occup Hyg. 2011 Mar;55(2):180-91. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/meq075. Epub 2010 Oct 29. Ann Occup Hyg. 2011. PMID: 21036895 Free PMC article.
-
Use of prototype side stream filtration system to control dust levels in a commercial swine farrowing building.J Occup Environ Hyg. 2023 Dec;20(12):633-645. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2023.2247457. Epub 2023 Aug 15. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2023. PMID: 37582250 Free PMC article.
-
Personal exposure of dairy workers to dust, endotoxin, muramic acid, ergosterol, and ammonia on large-scale dairies in the high plains Western United States.J Occup Environ Hyg. 2018 Mar;15(3):182-193. doi: 10.1080/15459624.2017.1403610. J Occup Environ Hyg. 2018. PMID: 29157144 Free PMC article.
-
Assessment of swine worker exposures to dust and endotoxin during hog load-out and power washing.Ann Occup Hyg. 2012 Aug;56(7):843-51. doi: 10.1093/annhyg/mes013. Epub 2012 Mar 16. Ann Occup Hyg. 2012. PMID: 22425653 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Aizenberg V, Grinshpun SA, Willeke K, et al. Performance characteristics of the Button personal inhalable aerosol sampler. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 2000;61:398–404. - PubMed
-
- American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) Threshold limit values for chemical substances and physical agents and biological indices. Cincinnati, OH: ACGIH; 2007.
-
- Bartley DL. Inhalable aerosol samplers. Appl Occup Environ Hyg. 1998;13:274–8.
-
- Buchan RM, Soderholm SC, Tillery MI. Aerosol sampling efficiency of 37 mm filter cassettes. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J. 1986;47:825–31. - PubMed
-
- De Vocht F, Huizer D, Prause M, et al. Field comparison of inhalable aerosol samplers applied in the European rubber manufacturing industry. Int Arch Occup Environ Health. 2006;79:621–9. - PubMed
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Medical