On the Interpretation of Air Sampling for Radioactive Particles

Sherwood, R. J.

doi:10.1080/00028896609342800

Cited by 27 publications

(30 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For area samples the lower and upper CI are 0.004 and 0.006 fWcm -3 , respectively, and for personal samples the lower and upper CI are 0.019 and 0.029 f W cm -3 , respectively. These analyses suggest that personal samples have a higher airborne concentration than area samples as has been reported in other publications [35,45,47,[50][51][52]. A higher personal concentration as compared to area concentration also has been reported to be statistically different in non-asbestos exposure studies [47,51].…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

“…Evaluation of this relationship is important to the abatement industry since area and personal samples are often viewed as interchangeable [35]. However, this concept is in contradiction with regulatory requirements [8,29] and previous publications that suggest there is no relationship or association between the two sampling methods [44,45,[50][51][52][53][54][55]. Thus, evaluation of this relationship is warranted especially since area samples are commonly used in the abatement industry to represent occupational exposure [3,21,35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

“…Sample concentrations also were statistically different, with and without outliers, when analysed as non-transformed and transformed measurements using the Wilcoxon ranked sum and z tests, respectively. Personal samples were statistically greater in concentration than area measurements [45,47].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The purpose of occupational sampling is to determine the exposure dose of airborne material to the worker with this information used for a hazard assessment [35,48,55,63,81,[90][91][92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100]. Area samples have been commonly employed to estimate exposure to workers and the general environment, but may be inappropriate for occupational protection and underestimate the exposure concentration based on these and other study data [45,48,51,54].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These studies suggest that there were no differences for concentrations measured by the two methods, area and personal sampling. Historically, it has been suggested that personal samples generally provide a higher concentration [38,[45][46][47] and are suggested to be the best measure for occupational exposure as compared to area samples [38,40,[45][46][47][48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]. A few studies [35,44,56,57] have suggested that area and personal samples provide similar results and area samples may be applicable for predicting personal (occupational) exposure [35].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

A Statistical Evaluation of Asbestos Air Concentrations

Lange¹

1999

Indoor Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Both area and personal air samples collected during an asbestos abatement project were matched and statistically analysed. Among the many parameters studied were fibre concentrations and their variability. Mean values for area and personal samples were 0.005 and 0.024 f·cm^–3 of air, respectively. Summary values for area and personal samples suggest that exposures are low with no single exposure value exceeding the current OSHA TWA value of 0.1 f·cm^–3 of air. Within- and between-worker analysis suggests that these data are homogeneous. Comparison of within- and between-worker values suggests that the exposure source and variability for abatement are more related to the process than individual practices. This supports the importance of control measures for abatement. Study results also suggest that area and personal samples are not statistically related, that is, there is no association observed for these two sampling methods when data are analysed by correlation or regression analysis. Personal samples were statistically higher in concentration than area samples. Area sampling cannot be used as a surrogate exposure index for asbestos abatement workers.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 64%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 72%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A Statistical Evaluation of Asbestos Air Concentrations

Lange¹

1999

Indoor Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Theory and Rationale of Exposure Measurement

Lynch¹

2001

Patty's Industrial Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This chapter explains why workplace measurements of air contaminants are made, discusses the options available in terms of number, time, and location, and relates these options to the criteria that govern their selection and the consequences of various choices. In addition, this chapter discusses industrial hygiene exposure assessment methods in the broader context of exposure assessment as it is used outside the workplace A person at work may be exposed to many potentially harmful agents for as long as a working lifetime, upward of 40 years in some cases. These agents occur singly and in mixtures, and their concentration varies with time. Exposure may occur continuously or at regular intervals or in altogether irregular spurts. The worker may inhale the agent or be exposed by skin contact or ingestion. As a result of these exposures and depending on the magnitude of the dose, some harmful effect may occur. All measurements in industrial hygiene ultimately relate to the dose received by the worker and the harm it might do. Early investigators of the exposure of workers to toxic chemicals encountered obviously unhealthy conditions as evidenced by the existence of frank disease. Quantitative measurements of the work environment to estimate the dose received by the afflicted were not needed to establish cause‐and‐effect relationships and the need for exposure remediation measures. At the same time, the ability of these early industrial hygienists to make measurements was severely limited because convenient sampling equipment did not exist and analytical methods were insensitive. Consequently, few measurements were made, and much judgment was applied to maximize the representativeness of the measurements or even as a substitute for measurement. Changes in working conditions, in technology, and in society have changed the old methods of measurement. It is now both necessary and possible to examine in far more detail the way in which workers are exposed to harmful chemicals. Personal sampling pumps permit collection of contaminants in the breathing zone of a mobile worker. Pump‐collector combinations are available for long and short sampling periods. Passive dosimeters, which do not require pumps, are available for a wide range of gases and vapors. Systems that do not require the continual attention of the sample taker permit the simultaneous collection of multiple samples. Data loggers can continuously record instrument readings in a form easily transferable to a computer. Automated sampling and analytical systems can collect data continuously. Sorbent‐gas chromatograph techniques permit the simultaneous sampling and analyses of mixtures and, when coupled with mass spectrometers, identify obscure unknowns. Sensitivities have improved to the degree that tens and hundreds of ubiquitous trace materials begin to be noticeable. At the same time the demands placed on our information gathering systems are greater. Now we must not only answer the question, “Is exposure to this agent likely to harm anyone?” but provide data for many other purposes. Process operators want continuous assurance that contaminant levels are within normal bounds. Management information systems that issue status reports when queried require monitoring of data inputs. Data needs are so pervasive that there is a tendency to monitor without a clear idea of what the data will be used for or whether it will meet the need. An overall purpose of this chapter is to suggest the objectives that need to be considered in an analysis of the value of exposure measurement.

show abstract

Interpreting Levels of Exposures To Chemical Agents

Rappaport¹

2001

Patty's Industrial Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The past half‐century has witnessed great advances in the characterization of exposures to toxic chemicals in the workplace. With the development of robust personal monitors, it is now a relatively simple matter to measure the daily air levels among various workers in an observational group (a group of workers sharing observable factors such as job, location, department, etc.). Unfortunately, the interpretation of levels of exposure has not achieved the same degree of sophistication. In fact, decisions still tend to rely upon one‐to‐one comparisons of the highest measured air concentration with occupational exposure limits (OELs), much as they did 50 years ago (see, for example, Refs. 10–14). If the highest air concentration is less than the OEL, then exposure is acceptable (in compliance) and vice versa. While such interpretations would be reasonable if occupational exposures were relatively constant, they seem remarkably naïve when considered in light of daily exposure levels which vary between 10 and 4000 fold. Because exposures must be evaluated in the face of great variability within and between workers in observational groups, statistical methods are central to proper assessment procedures. Likewise, since monitoring is motivated by, and must ultimately relate to, exposure limits, the impact of exposure variability on the interpretation of OELs is important. The purpose of this chapter is to integrate statistical methods and the philosophical bases for exposure limits within a conceptual framework for interpreting exposure data. The methods will be illustrated with the four sets of exposure data depicted in graphical form. The sources and characteristics of these measurements are summarized and all data are listed in Appendix A for those who wish to work through the various examples in the text.

show abstract

On the Interpretation of Air Sampling for Radioactive Particles

Cited by 27 publications

References 2 publications

A Statistical Evaluation of Asbestos Air Concentrations

A Statistical Evaluation of Asbestos Air Concentrations

Theory and Rationale of Exposure Measurement

Interpreting Levels of Exposures To Chemical Agents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About