Skip Navigation

This Article
Right arrow Full Text Freely available
Right arrow FREE Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My Personal Archive
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by JOHNSON, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by ESMEN, N. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by JOHNSON, D. L.
Right arrow Articles by ESMEN, N. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 48, No. 1, pp. 13-20, 2004
© 2004 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press

Method-induced Misclassification for a Respirable Dust Sampled Using ISO/ACGIH/CEN Criteria

D. L. JOHNSON* and N. A. ESMEN

Aerosols Research Laboratory, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Centre, PO Box 26901, Oklahoma City, OK 73190, USA

Received 22 April 2002; in final form 23 May 2003

The single cut measurement of exposure to respirable dust is the accepted method of exposure classification in occupational hygiene. We previously showed that actual pulmonary tissue dose may be substantially different from the dose expected, or the indicated dose, based on measurements using current single cut methodologies. We now examine exposure misclassification of workers based on any single cut respirable dust measurement using the internationally accepted ISO/ACGIH/CEN single cut respirable dust measurement criteria. Hypothetical aerosols with 12 generalized size distributions typical of the method of aerosol generation (condensation, aged condensation, mechanical low energy, mechanical high energy and mixtures thereof) were assumed. Using previously reported models for sampler penetration and pulmonary deposition, Monte Carlo simulations of actual mass dose to pulmonary tissues in comparison to the dose estimate from an ideal respirable aerosol sampler were carried out. Measurement-based indicated doses were used to classify exposures into five exposure categories and these classifications were compared with the ‘true’ classifications from the dose-based exposure estimates. Misclassification rates were generally severe and were greatest for aerosols with mass median aerodynamic diameter (MMAD) < 1 µm (~100%) and MMAD 5–15 µm (65–95%). Misclassification rates were moderate (<20%) only for extremely coarse aerosols of MMAD > 15 µm. Misclassification rates for oral and nasal breathing at 750 and 1500 ml tidal volume and 15 breaths/min were similar for each aerosol examined.

Keywords: size-selective sampling; respirable; error; misclassification


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
K. A. Koehler, P. Clark, and J. Volckens
Development of a Sampler for Total Aerosol Deposition in the Human Respiratory Tract
Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2009; 53(7): 731 - 738.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 ANN OCCUP HYGHome page
T. OGDEN
Annals of Occupational Hygiene at Volume 50: Many Achievements, a Few Mistakes, and an Interesting Future
Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2006; 50(8): 751 - 764.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Disclaimer: Please note that abstracts for content published before 1996 were created through digital scanning and may therefore not exactly replicate the text of the original print issues. All efforts have been made to ensure accuracy, but the Publisher will not be held responsible for any remaining inaccuracies. If you require any further clarification, please contact our Customer Services Department.