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。

Bernardo Z Predicala, Ronaldo G Maghirang
{"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,&nbsp;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,&nbsp;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}
引用次数: 22

摘要

比较了可吸入粉尘和总粉尘取样装置对猪舍空气粉尘的评价。通过使用IOM(英国爱丁堡职业医学研究所)可吸入粉尘采样器和37毫米封闭式总粉尘采样器进行区域采样,获得了三个养猪场(n = 77配对平均值)的测量结果。IOM总几何平均浓度(1.18 mg/m(3),几何标准差[GSD] = 2.00)显著高于TCF总几何平均浓度(1.08 mg/m(3), GSD = 1.98) (P < 0.05)。以IOM和TCF值分别作为自变量和因变量进行回归分析,得出因子0.86(+/-0.04 95%置信区间),可用于估算IOM测量的TCF值。另外获得配对采样数据,比较以下对粉尘采样器:(1)IOM采样器与锥形可吸入采样器(CIS) (n = 20对均值),(2)IOM采样器与露天总粉尘(TOF)采样器(n = 14), (3) CIS采样器与TCF采样器(n = 19), (4) TCF采样器与TOF采样器(n = 8)。配对t检验显示IOM浓度显著高于CIS采样器(P < 0.05);其余3对比较无显著差异(P > 0.05)。可能有必要建立特定于工作的转换系数,以便通过使用其他类型的粉尘取样装置进行测量,获得对工人接触总粉尘的合理估计。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信