Skip to main content

Performance Comparison of Real-Time Light Scattering Dust Monitors Across Dust Types and Humidity Levels

Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration volume 36, pages 741–749 (2019)Cite this article

Abstract

Video techniques for monitoring exposure, such as NIOSH’s “Helmet-CAM,” employ both real-time dust monitors and mobile video cameras to assess workers’ respirable dust exposures. Many real-time personally worn dust monitors utilize light scattering sensing elements, which are subject to measurement biases as a function of dust type (size, composition, shape factor) and environmental conditions such as relative humidity. These biased and inaccurate dust measurements impair the monitor’s ability to properly represent actual respirable dust concentrations. In the testing described, instrument mass concentration data was collected using three different types of commonly used commercial off-the-shelf personal dust monitors and compared to a reference standard. This testing was performed in a calm air (Marple) dust chamber in which three units of each make and model (for a total of nine monitors) were used for each test. Equivalency factors (EF, a multiplier to match the Thermo TEOM 1400a reference instrument) ranged between 0.746 and 1.879 across all dusts and environmental conditions tested, and between 0.821 and 1.519 on the ISO test dust.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

43,34 €

Price includes VAT (Finland)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

References

  1. McWilliams LJ, Lenart PJ, Lancaster JL, Zeiner Jr JR (2012) National survey of the mining population part 1: employees. Office of Mine Safety and Health Research, Information Circular, IC, 9527, 252

  2. MSHA (2017) MSHA Data Sets; Personal Health Samples. Retrieved from https://arlweb.msha.gov/OpenGovernmentData/OGIMSHA.asp

  3. Cecala AB, O'Brien AD (2014) Here comes the Helmet-CAM: a recent advance in technology can improve how mine operators investigate and assess respirable dust. Rock Prod 117:26–30

    Google Scholar 

  4. Haas EJ (2018) How health & safety professionals can use EVADE Software to assess worker exposure. (DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2018-108d). Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tQdaE9ronqg

  5. NIOSH (1994) NIOSH, Manual of Analytical Methods: US Department of Health and Human Services, Public Health Service, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Division of Physical Sciences and Engineering

  6. Reed WR, Potts JD, Cecala AB, Archer WJ (2012) Use of the 1500-pDR for gravimetric respirable dust measurements at mines. SME Transactions

  7. Chu B (2007) Laser light scattering: basic principles and practice: Courier Corporation

  8. Mishchenko MI, Hovenier JW, Travis LD (1999) Light scattering by nonspherical particles: theory, measurements, and applications: Elsevier

  9. Williams KL, Timko RJ (1984) Performance evaluation of a real-time aerosol monitor (Information Circular 8968)

  10. Page SJ, Jankowski RA (1984) Correlations between measurements with RAM-land gravimetric samplers on longwall shearer faces. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 45(9):610–616

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Thorpe A, Walsh PT (2002) Performance testing of three portable, direct-reading dust monitors. Ann Occup Hyg 46(2):197–207

    Google Scholar 

  12. Thorpe A, Walsh PT (2007) Comparison of portable, real-time dust monitors sampling actively, with size-selective adaptors, and passively. Ann Occup Hyg 51(8):679–691

    Google Scholar 

  13. TSI (2015) Custom Cal Factor for Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)

  14. Peters TM, Volkwein JC (2003) Analysis of sampling line bias on respirable mass measurement. J Appl Occup Environ Hyg 18(6):458–465

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Scientific Corporation, Thermo Scientific (2013) Model pDR-1000AN/1200 personalDATARAM Instruction Manual

  16. Marple VA, Rubow KL (1983) An aerosol chamber for instrument evaluation and calibration. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 44(5):361–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Volkwein JC, Vinson RP, Page SJ, McWilliams LJ, Joy GJ, Mischler SE, Tuchman DP (2006) Laboratory and field performance of a continuously measuring personal respirable dust monitor

  18. Kogut J, Tomb TF, Parobeck PS, Gero AJ, Suppers KL (1997) Measurement precision with the coal mine dust personal sampler. Appl Occup Environ Hyg 12(12):999–1006

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Listak JM, Checkan GJ, Colinet JF, Rider JP (2007) Performance of a light scattering dust monitor at various air velocities: results of sampling in the active versus the passive mode. Int J Miner Res Eng 12(1):35–47

    Google Scholar 

  20. Neter J, Kutner MH, Nachtsheim CJ, Wasserman W (1996) Applied linear statistical models (Vol. 4): Irwin Chicago

  21. Natrella M (2012) NIST/SEMATECH e-handbook of statistical methods. http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook, 11/30/2018

Download references

Acknowledgements

We are grateful to NIOSH researcher James Noll who helped to design and pilot studies in this area. We also appreciate the experience and expertise of NIOSH technicians Joe Archer and Jeanne Zimmer (both retired) for their execution of the tests in the Marple chamber and handling of the gravimetric filters. Finally, we thank Jarod Myers for conducting the bulk particle sizing.

Author information

Affiliations

  1. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Mining Research Division, 626 Cochrans Mill Road, Pittsburgh, PA, 15236, USA

    Justin R. Patts, Donald P. Tuchman, Elaine N. Rubinstein, Emanuele G. Cauda & Andrew B. Cecala

Authors
  1. Justin R. Patts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Donald P. Tuchman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elaine N. Rubinstein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Emanuele G. Cauda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Andrew B. Cecala
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Justin R. Patts.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Disclaimer

The findings and conclusions in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the official position of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Mention of any company or product does not constitute an endorsement by NIOSH.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Patts, J.R., Tuchman, D.P., Rubinstein, E.N. et al. Performance Comparison of Real-Time Light Scattering Dust Monitors Across Dust Types and Humidity Levels. Mining, Metallurgy & Exploration 36, 741–749 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-0080-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-0080-8

Keywords

  • Light scattering instrument
  • Industrial mineral dusts
  • Respirable dust sampler
  • Aerosol sampling methods
  • Equivalency factor