Skip Navigation



Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access published online on May 14, 2009

Annals of Occupational Hygiene, doi:10.1093/annhyg/mep021
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
53/6/585    most recent
mep021v1
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 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 Reynolds, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by O'shaughnessy, P.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Reynolds, S. J.
Right arrow Articles by O'shaughnessy, P.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us  
What's this?

© The Author 2009. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Occupational Hygiene Society

Field and Wind Tunnel Comparison of Four Aerosol Samplers Using Agricultural Dusts

Stephen J. Reynolds1,*, Jason Nakatsu1, Marvin Tillery1, Thomas Keefe1, John Mehaffy1, Peter S. Thorne2, Kelley Donham2, Matthew Nonnenmann3, Vijay Golla2 and Patrick O'shaughnessy2

1 Department of Environmental and Radiological Health Sciences, Colorado State University, Ft Collins, CO 80523, USA
2 Department of Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 55337, USA
3 Department of Occupational Health Sciences, University of Texas Health Science Center at Tyler, Tyler, TX 75708, USA

* Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. Tel: +970-491-3141; fax: +970-491-2940; e-mail: stephen.reynolds{at}colostate.edu

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.

aerosol samplers • agriculture • Button sampler • correlation analysis • inhalable dust • IOM sampler • organic dust

Received July 16, 2008; in final form March 30, 2009


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




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.