Accuracy of Real-Time Dust Monitors in Quarry Settings: A Pilot Field and Laboratory Evaluation

Yonatal Tefera; Chandnee Ramkissoon; Ryan Jurkowski; Hridita Ahmed; Shelley Rowett; Sharyn Gaskin

doi:10.53941/wah.2025.100008

Abstract

Accurate real-time dust monitoring methods are essential in workplaces where exposure to respirable crystalline silica (RCS) presents serious health risks. While real-time monitors are increasingly adopted due to their ability to quickly detect dust-generating activities, concerns remain regarding their accuracy compared to conventional gravimetric methods. This pilot study evaluated the performance of three real-time personal dust monitors: the SidePak™ AM520, Trolex XD1+, and Nanozen DustCount 9000, against a gravimetric reference in both field settings (South Australian quarries) and controlled laboratory environments. Pairwise comparisons of respirable dust (RD) concentrations were conducted across full work shifts. Geometric means from the real-time monitors were regressed against corresponding gravimetric measurements to derive correction coefficients, which were then used to estimate RCS exposure. Agreement between estimated and measured RCS values was assessed using Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC). Field results revealed inconsistent accuracy for the SidePak™ and Nanozen monitors, with performance varying by task. For example, the SidePak™ overestimated RD by 51% for a truck driver but underestimated levels by up to 48% for other roles. The Trolex XD1+ consistently underestimated RD by 80–89%. All monitors underestimated dust levels under laboratory conditions. However, applying correction coefficients improved agreement with gravimetric data, yielding a high concordance for RCS estimates (Lin’s CCC = 0.89; 95% CI: 0.66–0.97). These findings highlight both the utility and limitations of real-time monitors. Site-specific calibration is essential to enhance their reliability, and further studies with larger datasets are recommended to refine correction factors and improve accuracy of real-time dust monitors.

References

1.
Nemer, M.; Giacaman, R.; Husseini, A. Lung function and respiratory health of populations living close to quarry sites in Palestine: A cross-sectional study. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 6068. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph17176068.
2.
Nwibo, A.N.; Ugwuja, E.I.; Nwambeke, N.O.; et al. Pulmonary problems among quarry workers of stone crushing industrial site at Umuoghara, Ebonyi State, Nigeria. Indian J. Occup. Environ. 2012, 3, 178–185.
3.
Bahrami, A.R.; Mahjub, H. Comparative study of lung function in Iranian factory workers exposed to silica dust. East. Mediterr. Health J. 2003, 9, 390–398. https://doi.org/10.26719/2003.9.3.390.
4.
Leong, T.L.; Wimaleswaran, H.; Williams, D.S.; et al. Unexpected case of accelerated silicosis in a female quarry worker. Occup. Med. 2022, 72, 420–423. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqac016.
5.
Safe Work Australia. Working with Silica and Silica Containing Products; Safe Work Australia (SWA): Canberra, Australia, 2022.
6.
AS 2985-2009; Workplace Atmospheres—Method for Sampling and Gravimetric Determination of Respirable Dust. Standards Australia: Sydney, NSW, Australia, 2009.
7.
Ichikawa, A.; Volpato, J.; O’Donnell, G.; et al. Comparison of the analysis of respirable crystalline silica in workplace air by direct-on-filter methods using X-ray Diffraction and Fourier Transform Infrared Spectroscopy. Ann. Work Expo. Health 2022, 66, 632–643.
8.
Rae, H. A case study of pairwise sampling using a high flow rate respirable cyclone to overcome potential LOD issues. In Proceedings of the 39th AIOH Annual Scientific Conference & Exhibition, Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 3–7 December 2022; p. 11.
9.
Cauda, E.; Dolan, E.; Cecala, A.B.; et al. Benefits and limitations of field-based monitoring approaches for respirable dust and crystalline silica applied in a sandstone quarry. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2022, 19, 730–741. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2022.2132257.
10.
Trolex. AIR XS Silica Monitor. Available online: https://trolex.com/product/air-xs/ (accessed on 3 February 2024.
11.
Zhou, V. Real-Time Dust Monitoring Arrives in Australia. Available online: https://www.australianmining.com.au/real-time-dust-monitoring-arrives-in-australia/ (accessed on 3 February 2024).
12.
Air-Met Scientific Pty Ltd. Introducing the Nanozen DustCount 9000 Real-Time Personal Dust Monitor. Available online: https://www.airmet.com.au/events/news/introducing-the-nanozen-dustcount-9000-real-time-personal-dust-monitor (accessed on 3 January 2024).
13.
GCG. Exposi Intelligent Exposure Control. Available online: https://www.gcg.net.au/technology/exposi-real-time-exposure-monitoring/ (accessed on 5 September 2024).
14.
Chu, B. Laser Light Scattering: Basic Principles and Practice, 2nd ed.; Academic Press Inc.: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1991.
15.
Mishchenko, M.I.; Hovenier, J.W.; Travis, L.D. Light scattering by nonspherical particles: Theory, measurements, and applications. Meas. Sci. Technol. 2000, 11, 1827. https://doi.org/10.1088/0957-0233/11/12/705.
16.
Williams, K.L.; Timko, R.J. Performance Evaluation of a Real-Time Aerosol Monitor; U.S. Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Mines: Avondale, MD, USA, 1984.
17.
Page, S.J.; Jankowski, R.A. Correlations between measurements with RAM-land gravimetric samplers on longwall shearer faces. Am. Ind. Hyg. Assoc. J. 1984, 45, 610–616. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298668491400340.
18.
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. Min. Metall. Explor. 2019, 36, 741–749. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42461-019-0080-8.
19.
Ben Walsh, S.V.; Cattani, M.. Real time versus conventional sampler comparison study. In Proceedings of the AIOH Annual Conference 2023, Southbank, VIC, Australia, 4–6 December 2023.
20.
Dix, C. Real-time dust monitoring to prioritise and assess control effectiveness in processing plants. In Proceedings of the AIOH Annual Conference 2018, Melbourne, VIC, Australia, 1–5 December 2018.
21.
Hawley Blackley, B.; Gibbs, J.L.; Cummings, K.J.; et al. A field evaluation of a single sampler for respirable and inhalable indium and dust measurements at an indium-tin oxide manufacturing facility. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2019, 16, 66–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/15459624.2018.1536826.
22.
Mehadi, A.; Moosmüller, H.; Campbell, D.E.; et al. Laboratory and field evaluation of real-time and near real-time PM2.5 smoke monitors. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2020, 70, 158–179. https://doi.org/10.1080/10962247.2019.1654036.
23.
Thorpe, A. Assessment of personal direct-reading dust monitors for the measurement of airborne inhalable dust. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2007, 51, 97–112. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mel032.
24.
Thorpe, A.; Walsh, P.T. Comparison of portable, real-time dust monitors sampling actively, with size-selective adaptors, and passively. Ann. Occup. Hyg. 2007, 51, 679–691. https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mem047.
25.
Ramkissoon, C.; Gaskin, S.; Thredgold, L.; et al. Characterisation of dust emissions from machined engineered stones to understand the hazard for accelerated silicosis. Sci. Rep. 2022, 12, 4351. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-08378-8.
26.
EN 13205-4:2014; Workplace Exposure—Assessment of Sampler Performance for Measurement of Airborne Particle Concentrations—Part 4: Laboratory Performance Test Based on Comparison of Concentrations. European Standard: Plzen, Czech Republic, 2014.
27.
Rasmussen, P.E.; Levesque, C.; Niu, J.; et al. Characterization of Airborne Particles Emitted During Application of Cosmetic Talc Products. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3830. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16203830.

Scilight Press

Author Information

Abstract

Keywords

References

About Scilight

Journals

Publishing Policies

Contact Us