2012
DOI: 10.1038/jes.2012.8
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Personal exposure monitoring wearing protocol compliance: An initial assessment of quantitative measurement

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
23
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

1
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 25 publications
(24 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
1
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our findings are consistent with those of a recent study in which men and retirees were more compliant in wearing a sensor that quantifies exposure to particulate matter than participants who worked outside the home (26). In clinical trials, older participants tend to be more compliant in following research protocols than younger people, but the effect of education level is inconsistent across different studies (29).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Our findings are consistent with those of a recent study in which men and retirees were more compliant in wearing a sensor that quantifies exposure to particulate matter than participants who worked outside the home (26). In clinical trials, older participants tend to be more compliant in following research protocols than younger people, but the effect of education level is inconsistent across different studies (29).…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 88%
“…Figure illustrates the distribution of wearing compliance on Day 1 and Day 2; the scatterplot compares daily wearing compliance for individual participants. For the majority of households, the measured wearing compliance was greater than 70%, indicating the participants wore the MicroPEM long enough for the measurements to be considered representative of personal exposures (Lawless et al., ). Two households showed outlying low wearing compliances (<70%), but while the wearing compliance for these two homes was comparatively low, manual analysis of the PM 2.5 time‐series data show that the personal MicroPEM was worn during all cooking events.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Individual behavior, as well as the vertical and spatial gradients of PM 2.5 concentrations in the kitchen and living areas, makes it very difficult to accurately predict personal exposures without direct measurement (Clark et al, ). This difference would be even greater for a non‐cook occupying the home, such as a small child who does not necessarily need to stay close to the stove during cooking periods (Lawless et al., ; Rodes et al., ; Steinle et al., ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ultimately, and as defined in Section 3, a smaller number of VOCs (12) were incorporated into the final statistical analysis based on data availability. We have previously reported upon the impact of protocol compliance in the determination of true personal exposure monitoring (the wearing of personal exposure monitoring devices as defined by the study design) in both Rodes et al (2010) and Lawless et al (2012). In particular we defined personal monitoring compliance here with the adherence of wearing the monitoring vest a minimum of 60% of non-sleep hours and being exposed to a maximum of 1.5 mg/m 3 of PM 2.5 -related environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) during each 24 h period.…”
Section: Personal Voc Exposure Assessmentsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…60% and Nicotine 1.5 mg/m 3 ). The vest compliance was mathematically determined by examination of the electronic signature of the personal exposure monitoring device relative to key parameters including sensor temperature (proximity to the human body) and 3-D sensor movement (accelerometry) as defined in Lawless et al (2012).…”
Section: Participants Grouping and Base Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%