Evaluation Analytics for Occupational Health: How Well Do Laboratories Assess Workplace Concentrations of Respirable Crystalline Silica?

  • Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
  • Douglas A. Popken
  • Richard X. Sun
Part of the International Series in Operations Research & Management Science book series (ISOR, volume 270)


Chapters  8 and  10 have introduced important themes of evaluation analytics: discovering through independent replication of previous work (Chap.  8) and by applying new methods such as modern predictive and causal analytics algorithms to previously collected observational data (Chap.  10) whether published claims are reproducible and whether predicted effects caused by changes in exposures have actually occurred. This chapter provides an example of evaluation analytics in a context where experimentation is possible. It illustrates how a designed experiment with samples having known properties can be used to evaluate how consistently and accurately the laboratory system used to assess compliance of workplaces with occupational safety standards for respirable crystalline silica (RCS) performs in correctly classifying exposure concentrations as above or below a desired level. In this context, causation appears to be clear: concentrations of RCS in airlead to concentrations on air filters sent to laboratories. However, as we shall see, there is enough unexplained noise or random variation in the process so that even control samples with no RCS are sometimes mistakenly identified as carrying significant positive loads of RCS (Cox et al. 2015). Thus, the causes of laboratory-reported values include substantial contributions from measurement errors.


  1. Abell MT, Doemeny LJ (1991) Monitoring the performance of occupational health laboratories. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 52(8):336–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. AIHA (2016) Scope of accreditation to ISO/IEC 17043:2010. AIHA Proficiency Analytical Testing Programs.
  3. Ashley K (2015) NIOSH manual of analytical methods 5th edition and harmonization of occupational exposure monitoring. Gefahrst Reinhalt Luft 2015(1–2):7–16Google Scholar
  4. Cox LA Jr, Van Orden DR, Lee RJ, Arlauckas SM, Kautz RA, Warzel AL, Bailey KF, Ranpuria AK (2015) How reliable are crystalline silica dust concentration measurements? Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 73(1):126–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Harper M, Sarkisian K, Andrew M (2014) Assessment of respirable crystalline silica analysis using Proficiency Analytical Testing results from 2003-2013. J Occup Environ Hyg 11(10):D157–D163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. ISO/IEC (2010) ISO/IEC 17043:2010(en) conformity assessment — general requirements for proficiency testing
  7. Lee RJ, Van Orden DR, Cox LA, Arlauckas S, Kautz RJ (2016) Impact of muffle furnace preparation on the results of crystalline silica analysis. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol 80:164–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Maciejewska A (2006) Analysis of the competences of workplace inspecting laboratories for the determination of free crystalline silica (FCS), based on proficiency testing results. Med Pr 57(2):115–122. PolishGoogle Scholar
  9. Shulman SA, Groff JH, Abell MT (1992) Performance of laboratories measuring silica in the Proficiency Analytical Testing program. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J 53(1):49–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Louis Anthony Cox Jr.
    • 1
  • Douglas A. Popken
    • 2
  • Richard X. Sun
    • 3
  1. 1.Cox AssociatesDenverUSA
  2. 2.Cox AssociatesLittletonUSA
  3. 3.Cox AssociatesEast BrunswickUSA

Personalised recommendations