4.1 Article

Cotton dust and endotoxin exposure levels in three Shanghai textile factories: A comparison of samplers

期刊

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS INC
DOI: 10.1080/15459620600793672

关键词

Chinese dust sampler; cotton dust; endotoxin; textile manufacturing; vertical elutriator; inhalable dust

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The results of a field survey at three Shanghai textile factories were used to compare the performance of the Chinese dust sampler (CDS) with the standard American sampler vertical elutriator (VE). Side-by-side samples using a CDS and a VE were collected in seven specific manufacturing processes, with additional area and personal samples collected with a modified Institute of Occupational Medicine (IOM) personal inhalable sampler. Filters were analyzed for mass and endotoxin concentration. The geometric mean (GM) of the samples collected by the CDS was 0.79 mg/m(3) (geometric standard deviation [GSD] 1.9) compared with a GM of 0.31 mg/m(3) (GSD 1.7) for the VE measurements. The correlation coefficient for the CDS and VE samples was 0.35. The CDS, a high-volume total dust area sampler collects 2 to 10 times more dust than the VE, a size-selective method, depending on the manufacturing process. In spinning at Factory A, the VE and CDS measured concentrations of 0.15 mg/m(3) and 1.62 mg/m(3), respectively. Cotton dust concentration measurements collected by the IOM sampler demonstrated that personal exposure concentrations were significantly higher (GM 1.84 mg/m(3), GSD 1.6) than fixed-position area samples (GM 0.68 mg/m(3), GSD 1.9). The endotoxin concentration based on the VE samples was 366 EU/m(3), with the highest levels found in the specific manufacturing process drawing (1871 EU/m(3)) and the lowest in spinning (43.5 EU/m(3)). The results of the field comparison were used to convert historic CDS data into comparable exposures and to assign retrospective exposures to subjects included in a case-cohort study of lung cancer among female textile workers in Shanghai.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据