NIOSH logo and tagline

Laboratory and Field Performance of a Continuously Measuring Personal Respirable Dust Monitor

May 2012
NIOSH Docket Number 084

NIOSH, through an informal partnership with industry, labor, and the Mine Safety and Health Administration, has developed and tested a new type of instrument known as the personal dust monitor (PDM). The dust monitor is an integral part of the cap lamp that a miner normally carries to work and provides continuous information about the amount of respirable coal mine dust in the breathing zone of that individual.

Material Under Consideration

NIOSH Report of Investigation 9669: Laboratory and field performance of a continuously measuring personal respirable dust monitor; DHHS (NIOSH) Publication No. 2006-145 – September 2006 [PDF – 6,765 KB]

Reviews

Peer Reviewers’ Comments – posted December 31, 2009 [PDF – 1,083 KB]

Response to Peer Reviewers’ Comments – posted December 31, 2009 [PDF – 1,386 KB]

Information

Notice; 71 FR 32350; Notice of public input opportunity on “Laboratory and Field Performance of a Respirable Personal Dust Monitor”; 6/5/06 [PDF – 234 KB]

Submissions in order of receipt

Submission from Bain (S.D. Bullard Construction Co.); 6/6/06 [PDF – 25 KB]

Submission from Private person; 7/2/06 [PDF – 16 KB]

Submission from Belle (Anglo American plc); 7/5/06 [PDF – 65 KB]

Peer Review

Title: Laboratory and Field Performance of a Continuously Measuring Personal Respirable Dust Monitor

Subject: Documentation of the performance of a new instrument to monitor exposure of coal mine workers to respirable coal mine dust.

Purpose: To provide information on the PDM as an effective intervention for coal miners’ exposure. The Mine Safety and Health Administration (MSHA) will use the report to receive public comments on how to employ the PDM in underground coal mines.

Timing of Review: April 2006

Primary Disciplines or Expertise Needed for Review: Engineering, industrial hygiene, aerosol science, occupational and environmental health

Type of Review: Individual

Number of Reviewers: 4

Reviewers Selected by: NIOSH

Public Nominations Requested for Reviewers: No

Opportunities for the Public to Comment: Yes

Peer Reviewers Provided with Public Comment Before Their Review: Yes

Peer Reviewers:

Thomas M. Peters
Academic and Professional Credentials: PhD
Organizational Affiliation: Professor, Occupational and Environmental Health,
University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA; American Association of Aerosol Science
Areas of Expertise, Discipline, or Relevant Experience: Aerosol size measurement, instrumentation, control technology
Recommended by: NIOSH

Morton Lippmann
Academic and Professional Credentials: PhD, Human Exposure and Health Effects Program Director for the NIEHS Center in the Department of Environmental Medicine, Director of EPA Center for Particulate Matter Health Effects Research at NYU
Organizational Affiliation: Department of Environmental Medicine, New York University School of Medicine, Tuxedo, NY; American Association of Aerosol Science
Areas of Expertise, Discipline, or Relevant Experience: Inhalation toxicology, aerosol science and physiology, occupational and environmental hygiene, air pollution
Recommended by: NIOSH

Virgil A. Marple
Academic and Professional Credentials: PhD, Inventor
Organizational Affiliation: Department of Mechanical Engineering, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN; American Association of Aerosol Science; Super Computing Institute of the University of Minnesota
Areas of Expertise, Discipline, or Relevant Experience: Aerosol science, size distribution measurement, environmental and occupational air sampling
Recommended by: NIOSH

Andrew Maynard
Academic and Professional Credentials: PhD
Organizational Affiliation: Science Advisor, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Washington, DC; American Association of Aerosol Science; International Standards Organization working group on size selective sampling
Areas of Expertise, Discipline, or Relevant Experience: Aerosols and health implications, occupational aerosol sampler design, state of the art of nanoparticulate analysis
Recommended by: NIOSH

Charge to Peer Reviewers

  1. Does the abstract include the specific objective of the work, the techniques employed, and the significant results?
  2. Is the abstract clear and concise?
  3. Does the introduction explain the problem, outline earlier or concurrent work, and explain the author’s approach?
  4. Are the methods adequately described?
  5. Are the conclusions supported by the data?
  6. In general, is the organization of the manuscript satisfactory?
  7. Are the tables clear and appropriate?
  8. Are the figures clear and understandable?
  9. Are there any technical errors in this manuscript?
  10. Is the experimental design adequately described?
  11. Are the statistical methods appropriate?
  12. Are the conclusions consistent with the statistical analysis?
  13. Is the manuscript organized appropriately?
  14. Is the language of the manuscript acceptable as written?
    1. If not, is the paper wordy?
    2. If not, are the editorial errors: □ Major □ Minor
    3. If the errors are major, should the paper be removed from the clearance process?
  15. Does the manuscript contain policy issues?
    1. If yes, does the manuscript suggest a change in NIOSH policy?
    2. If yes, does the manuscript recommend new NIOSH policy?
  16. Should the manuscript be reviewed by the Director, NIOSH for policy issues?
  17. What is your recommendation for this manuscript?  □ Approve □ Approve after modification □ Not Approved