How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements?

To determine how reliably commercial laboratories measure crystalline silica concentrations corresponding to OSHA's proposed limits, 105 filters were prepared with known masses of 20, 40, and 80 μg of respirable quartz corresponding to airborne silica concentrations of 25, 50, and 100 μg/m3 and...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology 2015-10, Vol.73 (1), p.126-136
Hauptverfasser: Cox, L.A., Van Orden, D.R., Lee, R.J., Arlauckas, S.M., Kautz, R.A., Warzel, A.L., Bailey, K.F., Ranpuria, A.K.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 136
container_issue 1
container_start_page 126
container_title Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology
container_volume 73
creator Cox, L.A.
Van Orden, D.R.
Lee, R.J.
Arlauckas, S.M.
Kautz, R.A.
Warzel, A.L.
Bailey, K.F.
Ranpuria, A.K.
description To determine how reliably commercial laboratories measure crystalline silica concentrations corresponding to OSHA's proposed limits, 105 filters were prepared with known masses of 20, 40, and 80 μg of respirable quartz corresponding to airborne silica concentrations of 25, 50, and 100 μg/m3 and were submitted, in a blind test, to qualified commercial laboratories over a nine month period. Under these test conditions, the reported results indicated a lack of accuracy and precision needed to reliably inform regulatory compliance decisions. This was true even for filters containing only silica, without an interfering matrix. For 36 filters loaded with 20 or more micrograms of silica, the laboratories reported non-detected levels of silica. Inter-laboratory variability in this performance test program was so high that the reported results could not be used to reliably discriminate among filters prepared to reflect 8-h exposures to respirable quartz concentrations of 25, 50 and 100 μg/m3. Moreover, even in intra-laboratory performance, there was so much variability in the reported results that 2-fold variations in exposure concentrations could not be reliably distinguished. Part of the variability and underreporting may result from the sample preparation process. The results of this study suggest that current laboratory methods and practices cannot necessarily be depended on, with high confidence, to support proposed regulatory standards with reliable data. •We evaluated commercial laboratories ability to detect crystalline silica at current and proposed regulatory levels.•There was an overall under reporting of the silica values.•The reported values show very large variability between laboratories.•The data indicate that cannot reliably and consistently detect crystalline silica at the proposed regulatory levels.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.001
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1746882480</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0273230015300118</els_id><sourcerecordid>1746882480</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-990dd1b219396ee9f046104429150a8ac814fdadb878943345a2c8587959f4603</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotlZ_gSB79LLr5GN3k4OI1E8oeNFzSJNZTNmPmuwq_fdubfXoaWB43nmZh5BzChkFWlytsk3o1-8ZA5pnUGYA9IBMKagiBabyQzIFVvKUcYAJOYlxBQBMyvKYTFhBC8hVOSV3T91XErD2ZlljYgImNmxib-rat5hEX3trEjfEPrFda7Htg-l91yYNmjgEbMZNvDklR5WpI57t54y8Pdy_zp_Sxcvj8_x2kVquWJ8qBc7RJaOKqwJRVSAKCkIwRXMw0lhJReWMW8pSKsG5yA2zMpelylUlCuAzcrm7uw7dx4Cx142PFuvatNgNUdNSFFIyIbco36E2dDEGrPQ6-MaEjaagt_r0Sv_o01t9Gko96htTF_uCYdmg-8v8-hqB6x2A45ufHoOO1uMoxvmAtteu8_8WfAMhaYFJ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1746882480</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals</source><creator>Cox, L.A. ; Van Orden, D.R. ; Lee, R.J. ; Arlauckas, S.M. ; Kautz, R.A. ; Warzel, A.L. ; Bailey, K.F. ; Ranpuria, A.K.</creator><creatorcontrib>Cox, L.A. ; Van Orden, D.R. ; Lee, R.J. ; Arlauckas, S.M. ; Kautz, R.A. ; Warzel, A.L. ; Bailey, K.F. ; Ranpuria, A.K.</creatorcontrib><description>To determine how reliably commercial laboratories measure crystalline silica concentrations corresponding to OSHA's proposed limits, 105 filters were prepared with known masses of 20, 40, and 80 μg of respirable quartz corresponding to airborne silica concentrations of 25, 50, and 100 μg/m3 and were submitted, in a blind test, to qualified commercial laboratories over a nine month period. Under these test conditions, the reported results indicated a lack of accuracy and precision needed to reliably inform regulatory compliance decisions. This was true even for filters containing only silica, without an interfering matrix. For 36 filters loaded with 20 or more micrograms of silica, the laboratories reported non-detected levels of silica. Inter-laboratory variability in this performance test program was so high that the reported results could not be used to reliably discriminate among filters prepared to reflect 8-h exposures to respirable quartz concentrations of 25, 50 and 100 μg/m3. Moreover, even in intra-laboratory performance, there was so much variability in the reported results that 2-fold variations in exposure concentrations could not be reliably distinguished. Part of the variability and underreporting may result from the sample preparation process. The results of this study suggest that current laboratory methods and practices cannot necessarily be depended on, with high confidence, to support proposed regulatory standards with reliable data. •We evaluated commercial laboratories ability to detect crystalline silica at current and proposed regulatory levels.•There was an overall under reporting of the silica values.•The reported values show very large variability between laboratories.•The data indicate that cannot reliably and consistently detect crystalline silica at the proposed regulatory levels.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0273-2300</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1096-0295</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.001</identifier><identifier>PMID: 26160597</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis ; Crystalline silica ; Dust - analysis ; Inhalation Exposure - analysis ; Interlaboratory testing ; Intralaboratory testing ; Occupational Exposure - analysis ; Precision ; Silicon Dioxide - chemistry ; Variability ; X-ray diffraction</subject><ispartof>Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 2015-10, Vol.73 (1), p.126-136</ispartof><rights>2015 Elsevier Inc.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-990dd1b219396ee9f046104429150a8ac814fdadb878943345a2c8587959f4603</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-990dd1b219396ee9f046104429150a8ac814fdadb878943345a2c8587959f4603</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273230015300118$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,3536,27903,27904,65309</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26160597$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Cox, L.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Orden, D.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arlauckas, S.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kautz, R.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warzel, A.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, K.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ranpuria, A.K.</creatorcontrib><title>How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements?</title><title>Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology</title><addtitle>Regul Toxicol Pharmacol</addtitle><description>To determine how reliably commercial laboratories measure crystalline silica concentrations corresponding to OSHA's proposed limits, 105 filters were prepared with known masses of 20, 40, and 80 μg of respirable quartz corresponding to airborne silica concentrations of 25, 50, and 100 μg/m3 and were submitted, in a blind test, to qualified commercial laboratories over a nine month period. Under these test conditions, the reported results indicated a lack of accuracy and precision needed to reliably inform regulatory compliance decisions. This was true even for filters containing only silica, without an interfering matrix. For 36 filters loaded with 20 or more micrograms of silica, the laboratories reported non-detected levels of silica. Inter-laboratory variability in this performance test program was so high that the reported results could not be used to reliably discriminate among filters prepared to reflect 8-h exposures to respirable quartz concentrations of 25, 50 and 100 μg/m3. Moreover, even in intra-laboratory performance, there was so much variability in the reported results that 2-fold variations in exposure concentrations could not be reliably distinguished. Part of the variability and underreporting may result from the sample preparation process. The results of this study suggest that current laboratory methods and practices cannot necessarily be depended on, with high confidence, to support proposed regulatory standards with reliable data. •We evaluated commercial laboratories ability to detect crystalline silica at current and proposed regulatory levels.•There was an overall under reporting of the silica values.•The reported values show very large variability between laboratories.•The data indicate that cannot reliably and consistently detect crystalline silica at the proposed regulatory levels.</description><subject>Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis</subject><subject>Crystalline silica</subject><subject>Dust - analysis</subject><subject>Inhalation Exposure - analysis</subject><subject>Interlaboratory testing</subject><subject>Intralaboratory testing</subject><subject>Occupational Exposure - analysis</subject><subject>Precision</subject><subject>Silicon Dioxide - chemistry</subject><subject>Variability</subject><subject>X-ray diffraction</subject><issn>0273-2300</issn><issn>1096-0295</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2015</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LAzEQhoMotlZ_gSB79LLr5GN3k4OI1E8oeNFzSJNZTNmPmuwq_fdubfXoaWB43nmZh5BzChkFWlytsk3o1-8ZA5pnUGYA9IBMKagiBabyQzIFVvKUcYAJOYlxBQBMyvKYTFhBC8hVOSV3T91XErD2ZlljYgImNmxib-rat5hEX3trEjfEPrFda7Htg-l91yYNmjgEbMZNvDklR5WpI57t54y8Pdy_zp_Sxcvj8_x2kVquWJ8qBc7RJaOKqwJRVSAKCkIwRXMw0lhJReWMW8pSKsG5yA2zMpelylUlCuAzcrm7uw7dx4Cx142PFuvatNgNUdNSFFIyIbco36E2dDEGrPQ6-MaEjaagt_r0Sv_o01t9Gko96htTF_uCYdmg-8v8-hqB6x2A45ufHoOO1uMoxvmAtteu8_8WfAMhaYFJ</recordid><startdate>20151001</startdate><enddate>20151001</enddate><creator>Cox, L.A.</creator><creator>Van Orden, D.R.</creator><creator>Lee, R.J.</creator><creator>Arlauckas, S.M.</creator><creator>Kautz, R.A.</creator><creator>Warzel, A.L.</creator><creator>Bailey, K.F.</creator><creator>Ranpuria, A.K.</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7U7</scope><scope>C1K</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20151001</creationdate><title>How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements?</title><author>Cox, L.A. ; Van Orden, D.R. ; Lee, R.J. ; Arlauckas, S.M. ; Kautz, R.A. ; Warzel, A.L. ; Bailey, K.F. ; Ranpuria, A.K.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c392t-990dd1b219396ee9f046104429150a8ac814fdadb878943345a2c8587959f4603</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2015</creationdate><topic>Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis</topic><topic>Crystalline silica</topic><topic>Dust - analysis</topic><topic>Inhalation Exposure - analysis</topic><topic>Interlaboratory testing</topic><topic>Intralaboratory testing</topic><topic>Occupational Exposure - analysis</topic><topic>Precision</topic><topic>Silicon Dioxide - chemistry</topic><topic>Variability</topic><topic>X-ray diffraction</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Cox, L.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Van Orden, D.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, R.J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Arlauckas, S.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kautz, R.A.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Warzel, A.L.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bailey, K.F.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Ranpuria, A.K.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Toxicology Abstracts</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><jtitle>Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Cox, L.A.</au><au>Van Orden, D.R.</au><au>Lee, R.J.</au><au>Arlauckas, S.M.</au><au>Kautz, R.A.</au><au>Warzel, A.L.</au><au>Bailey, K.F.</au><au>Ranpuria, A.K.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements?</atitle><jtitle>Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology</jtitle><addtitle>Regul Toxicol Pharmacol</addtitle><date>2015-10-01</date><risdate>2015</risdate><volume>73</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>126</spage><epage>136</epage><pages>126-136</pages><issn>0273-2300</issn><eissn>1096-0295</eissn><abstract>To determine how reliably commercial laboratories measure crystalline silica concentrations corresponding to OSHA's proposed limits, 105 filters were prepared with known masses of 20, 40, and 80 μg of respirable quartz corresponding to airborne silica concentrations of 25, 50, and 100 μg/m3 and were submitted, in a blind test, to qualified commercial laboratories over a nine month period. Under these test conditions, the reported results indicated a lack of accuracy and precision needed to reliably inform regulatory compliance decisions. This was true even for filters containing only silica, without an interfering matrix. For 36 filters loaded with 20 or more micrograms of silica, the laboratories reported non-detected levels of silica. Inter-laboratory variability in this performance test program was so high that the reported results could not be used to reliably discriminate among filters prepared to reflect 8-h exposures to respirable quartz concentrations of 25, 50 and 100 μg/m3. Moreover, even in intra-laboratory performance, there was so much variability in the reported results that 2-fold variations in exposure concentrations could not be reliably distinguished. Part of the variability and underreporting may result from the sample preparation process. The results of this study suggest that current laboratory methods and practices cannot necessarily be depended on, with high confidence, to support proposed regulatory standards with reliable data. •We evaluated commercial laboratories ability to detect crystalline silica at current and proposed regulatory levels.•There was an overall under reporting of the silica values.•The reported values show very large variability between laboratories.•The data indicate that cannot reliably and consistently detect crystalline silica at the proposed regulatory levels.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>26160597</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.001</doi><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0273-2300
ispartof Regulatory toxicology and pharmacology, 2015-10, Vol.73 (1), p.126-136
issn 0273-2300
1096-0295
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1746882480
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals
subjects Air Pollutants, Occupational - analysis
Crystalline silica
Dust - analysis
Inhalation Exposure - analysis
Interlaboratory testing
Intralaboratory testing
Occupational Exposure - analysis
Precision
Silicon Dioxide - chemistry
Variability
X-ray diffraction
title How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-26T15%3A32%3A38IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=How%20reliable%20are%20crystalline%20silica%20dust%20concentration%20measurements?&rft.jtitle=Regulatory%20toxicology%20and%20pharmacology&rft.au=Cox,%20L.A.&rft.date=2015-10-01&rft.volume=73&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=126&rft.epage=136&rft.pages=126-136&rft.issn=0273-2300&rft.eissn=1096-0295&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.yrtph.2015.07.001&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E1746882480%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1746882480&rft_id=info:pmid/26160597&rft_els_id=S0273230015300118&rfr_iscdi=true