Review of Workplace Based Aerosol Sampler Comparison Studies, 2004–2020

Abstract

We provide a narrative review on published peer-reviewed scientific literature reporting comparisons of personal samplers in workplace settings published between 2004 and 2020. Search terms were developed for Web of Science and PubMed bibliographic databases. The retrieved studies were then screened for relevance, with those studies meeting the inclusion criteria being taken forward to data extraction (22 studies). The inhalable fraction was the most common fraction assessed with the IOM sampler being the most studied sampler. The most common workplace environment where samplers had been compared was that where metals/metalloids were present. The requirements of EN13205 standard (Workplace exposure. Assessment of sampler performance for measurement of airborne particle concentrations) have also been considered, with these requirements not currently being met, or at least referred to, in the included published literature. A number of conclusions have been drawn from this narrative review. For studies that reported correction factors, no discernible trends could be identified. Correction factors also varied between samplers and settings, with correction factors varying from 0.67 for Button/IOM in agriculture settings to a correction factor of 4.2 for the closed face cassette/IOM samplers in aluminium smelters. The need for more detailed and informative data sharing from authors is highlighted, providing more context to both the sampling strategy and methodology, as well as the data analysis. It is recommended that the requirements of EN13205 are taken into account when designing sampler comparison studies at the workplace and that these are also reported. It is also considered that there is a need for a clear standardized workplace sampler comparison protocol to be developed, which can be used by the research and occupational hygiene community to allow more robust and transparent assessment of aerosol samplers and better-quality evidence for use by industrial hygienists, epidemiologists, and occupational safety specialists alike.

Atomic spectrometry update – a review of advances in environmental analysis

“…There are challenges in comparing exposure datasets because different designs of personal samplers can possess different sampling efficiencies. A review (54 references) of studies published between 2004 and 2020 compared 8 different samplers but, alas, found no discernible trends. The authors recommended that a standardised testing protocol be adopted to aid future comparisons.…”

Review of Published Laboratory-Based Aerosol Sampler Efficiency, Performance and Comparison Studies (1994–2021)

“…The SKC Aluminium cyclone (flow rate of 2.5 L/min) was also assessed. It is also worth noting for this article that the authors also performed field measurements which are discussed in our workplace sampler comparison review (Hanlon et al, 2021) [13]. Samplers were compared to each other and not to an inhalable convention and the authors concluded that the IOM sampler had the lowest coefficient of variation (i.e., the best precision) of the samplers and was least affected by wind speed changes (wind speeds of 0, 0.2 and 1.0 m/s for the sampled dusts).…”

“…A recent survey of aerosol sampling heads used within the metals industry revealed a wide variety of inhalable, thoracic, and respirable samplers as being commonly used [13] ( Hanlon et al, 2021). This is not surprising given that a wide variety of personal samplers that have been developed [14,15].…”

“…This literature review aims to summarise the recent published literature (1994-2021) describing sampler performance and comparison studies in laboratory settings so that current knowledge can be synthesised to inform subsequent work programmes of the international sampler comparison study. Hanlon et al (2021) previously reported a review of the literature describing sampler comparison studies in workplace settings [13].…”