As part of our ongoing testing programme in real-world scenarios, we recently visited a local company manufacturing specialist refractory materials.

During the visit, Joe Morais, our in-house Occupational Hygienist, conducted personal exposure monitoring using traditional techniques as stipulated in MDHS 101/2 – Crystalline silica in respirable airborne dust, alongside our AirX range of real-time monitoring instrumentation. 

Among other things, personal sampling was conducted on one of the Mill Operators as he filled bags with product containing crystalline silica.

2 x AIR XS units were positioned either side of the operator’s work area, and the resultant respirable crystalline silica levels were recorded in real time. 

In line with standard Occupational Hygiene practice, the personal samplers were retrieved from the operatives, processed, and submitted to an external accredited laboratory for analysis of both respirable dust and respirable crystalline silica exposure concentrations. 

The analytical results indicated that the operative was exposed to 0.101 mg/m³ respirable crystalline silica during bagging activities. At the same time, the AIR XS units returned average respirable crystalline silica results of 0.118 mg/m³ and 0.079 mg/m³ respectively.

The data provided valuable insights into the operative’s behaviours based on exposure profiles during the assessment period. 

This comparative result not only demonstrates how AIR XS performs in line with traditional monitoring techniques but also highlights its importance in interpreting operative behaviours, the impact of resting periods, and the design of control measures.  

We recently conducted 8 tests on XD1+ to evaluate the potential for “accuracy drift” when exposed to heavy dust loading without routine cleaning activities.

Each test involved dosing 100mg of ISO12103-1 A2 dust into the chamber every 2 hours over an 8-hour period.  

The study aimed to replicate challenging operational conditions in which the XD1+ can be deployed. 

1. No statistically significant differences were detected between average PM4.25 readings for any test condition pairs

2. The absence of significant differences suggests that, under the tested conditions, there is no measurable evidence of performance degradation in the XD1+ units that would affect PM4.25 measurement accuracy

3. Variations observed in the raw data likely reflect normal measurement variability rather than systematic drift or degradation of sensor performance

4. This stability in performance is important for long-term monitoring, as it indicates that the XD1+ units maintained consistent PM4.25 readings across the test period

The results demonstrate consistent XD1+ performance across all test conditions, with no significant degradation observed despite repeated exposure to high dust concentrations and the absence of cleaning. This underscores the instrument’s robustness and reliability in demanding environments.

It should be noted that while these findings highlight the resilience of the XD1+, they don’t replace the need for routine compliance testing to be done. Regular upkeep remains essential for optimal long-term performance.

Please consult the XD1+ user manual for guidance on carrying out a compliance check to your AIR X units.