A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 197

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 197
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 271
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3165
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 597
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 511
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 317
Function: require_once

The effects of neutralized particles on the sampling efficiency of polyurethane foam used to estimate the extrathoracic deposition fraction. | LitMetric

The effects of neutralized particles on the sampling efficiency of polyurethane foam used to estimate the extrathoracic deposition fraction.

J Occup Environ Hyg

a Rocky Mountain Center for Occupational & Environmental Health , Department of Family & Preventive Medicine, University of Utah, Salt Lake City , Utah.

Published: October 2016


Category Ranking

98%

Total Visits

921

Avg Visit Duration

2 minutes

Citations

20

Article Abstract

In addition to chemical composition, the site of deposition of inhaled particles is important for determining the potential health effects from an exposure. As a result, the International Organization for Standardization adopted a particle deposition sampling convention. This includes extrathoracic particle deposition sampling conventions for the anterior nasal passages (ET1) and the posterior nasal and oral passages (ET2). This study assessed how well a polyurethane foam insert placed in an Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) sampler can match an extrathoracic deposition sampling convention, while accounting for possible static buildup in the test particles. In this way, the study aimed to assess whether neutralized particles affected the performance of this sampler for estimating extrathoracic particle deposition. A total of three different particle sizes (4.9, 9.5, and 12.8 µm) were used. For each trial, one particle size was introduced into a low-speed wind tunnel with a wind speed set a 0.2 m/s (∼40 ft/min). This wind speed was chosen to closely match the conditions of most indoor working environments. Each particle size was tested twice either neutralized, using a high voltage neutralizer, or left in its normal (non neutralized) state as standard particles. IOM samplers were fitted with a polyurethane foam insert and placed on a rotating mannequin inside the wind tunnel. Foam sampling efficiencies were calculated for all trials to compare against the normalized ET1 sampling deposition convention. The foam sampling efficiencies matched well to the ET1 deposition convention for the larger particle sizes, but had a general trend of underestimating for all three particle sizes. The results of a Wilcoxon Rank Sum Test also showed that only at 4.9 µm was there a statistically significant difference (p-value = 0.03) between the foam sampling efficiency using the standard particles and the neutralized particles. This is interpreted to mean that static buildup may be occurring and neutralizing the particles that are 4.9 µm diameter in size did affect the performance of the foam sampler when estimating extrathoracic particle deposition.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2015.1091958DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

particle deposition
16
neutralized particles
12
polyurethane foam
12
deposition sampling
12
extrathoracic particle
12
particle sizes
12
foam sampling
12
deposition
9
particle
9
particles
8

Similar Publications