{"title":"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。","authors":"Bernardo Z Predicala, 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":"{\"title\":\"Field comparison of inhalable and total dust samplers for assessing airborne dust in swine confinement barns.\",\"authors\":\"Bernardo Z Predicala, 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}","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}
Field comparison of inhalable and total dust samplers for assessing airborne dust in swine confinement barns.
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.