The purpose of this study was to characterize and evaluate the performance of a whole-body human exposure chamber for controlled test atmospheres of gases and particulates. The chamber was constructed from Plexiglass, has a volume of 75 ft 3, operated at a flowrate of 33.8 CFM, and both the makeup and exhaust air are HEPA filtered. Fly ash dust was generated using a Wright Dust Feeder. An elutriator was used to eliminate particles larger 8 μm aerodynamic diameter from the airstream. A direct reading instrument, the Rupprecht and Patashnick PM-10 TEOM, was used for determination of particle concentration. Particle size distributions were determined by a QCM cascade impactor. Data from gravimetric analysis were used to test for the evenness of dust concentrations in the chamber. CO2 is used as a representative gas and its concentration was measured using the Metrosonics aq-5000. Total dust concentrations as measured by the TEOM, in μg/m 3, at 0.2, 0.4, 0.6 and 1.6 RPMs of the Wright Dust Feeder, were 110 + 2.8, 173 + 8.5, 398 + 20 and 550 + 17, respectively. For these RPMs, particle size distributions were associated with a MMD of 1.27 μm and a GSD of 2.35, a MMD of 1.39 and a GSD of 2.22, a MMD of 1.46 and a GSD of 2.08, a MMD of 1.15 and a GSD of 2.2, respectively. Total dust concentrations as measured by gravimetric analysis, in μg/m3 for the respirable fraction. Dust concentrations measured at different points within the chamber showed uniform distribution with a variability less than 10%. Similarly, the particle size distributions were found to be consistent across the different RPMs settings. Regarding carbon dioxide, its concentration was straightforward and the measured and theoretical maximum concentration levels were in agreement. The performance of this whole-body human exposure chamber has been characterized and evaluated for low levels of particles and gases and now it is a valuable research tool for inhalation challenge studies.

The purpose of this research was to evaluate the capability and performance of the University of South Florida’s (USF) Human Exposure Chamber (HEC) using aerosols in the thoracic range. The goals of this research were two-fold: to obtain an average particle size of 10 µm (thoracic-size range) inside the chamber during dust production and to test for evenness of dust concentration within the chamber. The USF HEC can be used for studies using gases and/or particulates. The chamber measurements are 4.16 ft x 2.67 ft x 6.75 ft, for a total volume of 75 ft3 or 2.13 m3. This research has public health significance since outdoor air pollution is found most commonly in the thoracic size range; future studies with the HEC could focus on the impact of outdoor air pollution on human subjects under various exposure conditions, and various particle size ranges. Soda lime glass beads were used in this study due to their uniformity in shape and size. A Wright Dust Feeder (WDF) was used to generate the glass beads aerosol in the chamber. Nitrogen gas and HEPA-filtered fresh air were used to transport the aerosol through the system and into the chamber. A total of nine different chamber configurations were made in order to increase the average particle size closer to the goal of 10 µm. Chamber reconfiguration provided statistically significant effect on increasing particle size with the exception of two intermediate settings. It was concluded that aerosol distribution within the chamber was even during operation of the chamber, and modification steps utilized in the study provided size distribution within +/- 6% of the target particle size.

Introduction : L’asthme professionnel (AP) est diagnostiqué au Québec avec le test de provocation bronchique spécifique (TPS). Le TPS consiste à exposer le patient à un agent causal suspecté en vue de provoquer une réaction asthmatique. Un TPS négatif est possible quand un agent causal a été omis de l’histoire professionnelle du patient. L’évaluation des expositions professionnelles par une expertise en hygiène en santé du travail est considérée comme une méthode précise, lorsque des données de mesure ne sont pas disponibles. Cependant, l'apport de cette méthode dans le diagnostic de l’AP n'a jamais été examiné dans un contexte clinique. Objectifs : Déterminer l'apport de l'évaluation des expositions professionnelles par une expertise en hygiène du travail dans l'investigation de l'AP. Comparer les expositions professionnelles détectées par un clinicien et par un hygiéniste chez 1) des sujets avec de l’AP prouvé par des TPS positifs, 2) chez des sujets avec des TPS négatifs. Méthodes : Une analyse des expositions potentielles par le clinicien a précédé la réalisation du TPS. Une évaluation des expositions professionnelles a été réalisée par un hygiéniste. L’hygiéniste n’avait pas connaissance du diagnostic du patient. Résultats : 120 sujets (TPS positifs : 67 négatifs :53) ont été enrôlés dans l’étude. L’hygiéniste a identifié l’agent causal dans la très grande majorité des TPS positifs. Dans 33 TPS négatifs, l’hygiéniste a détecté des agents sensibilisants non identifiés par le médecin. Conclusion : L’évaluation des expositions professionnelles par une expertise en hygiène du travail est une méthode pouvant compléter l'évaluation clinique pour la détection d’agents sensibilisants associés à l’AP. L’inclusion de cette approche dans l’évaluation clinique de l’AP aurait comme effet de réduire la survenance d’un diagnostic erroné. / Introduction: Occupational asthma (OA) is diagnosed in the province of Quebec with the specific inhalation challenge (SIC) test. The SIC test consists of exposing the patient to a suspected causal agent in order to induce an asthmatic reaction. When a causal agent has been omitted from the occupational history, the SIC test can be negative. An expert assessment of occupational exposures by an occupational hygienist is considered an accurate method when quantitative measurements are not available. However, its contribution has never been evaluated in the diagnosis of OA. Objective: Evaluate the contribution of an occupational exposure assessment by an expert industrial hygienist to the diagnosis of OA. Compare the occupational exposures detected by an occupational hygienist and a clinician in: 1) OA subjects with a positive SIC, 2) Subjects with a negative SIC. Methods: The clinician assessed the workplace exposures during a routine clinical evaluation preceding the performance of the SIC. An expert assessment of work histories was performed by an occupational hygienist blind to the diagnostic status of the patient. Results: 120 subjects (Positive SIC: 67 Negative SIC: 53) were enrolled in this study. The occupational hygienist detected the causal agent in almost all cases of OA. In 33 negative SIC, the occupational hygienist identified sensitizing agents which were not detected by the clinician. Conclusions: An expert assessment of occupational exposures by an occupational hygienist is a method which could complement the clinical assessment for the detection of sensitizing agents associated with OA. This method could be included in the clinical evaluation of OA in order to decrease the probability of misdiagnosis.