Occupational Exposure To Mineral Dust in

safety
Review
Occupational Exposure to Mineral Dust in Mining
and Earthmoving Works: A Scoping Review
Joana Duarte 1, * , Jacqueline Castelo Branco 1 , Fernanda Rodrigues 2 , Mário Vaz 1
and João Santos Baptista 1
1 Associated Laboratory for Energy, Transports and Aeronautics (PROA/LAETA), Faculty of Engineering,
University of Porto, 4200-465 Porto, Portugal; jcb@fe.up.pt (J.C.B.); gmavaz@fe.up.pt (M.V.);
jsbap@fe.up.pt (J.S.B.)
2 Research Center for Risks and Sustainability in Construction (RISCO), University of Aveiro,
3810-193 Aveiro, Portugal; mfrodrigues@ua.pt
* Correspondence: jasduarte@fe.up.pt
Abstract: Anthropogenic activity is related to several environmental imbalances, including dust.

Particulate matter can also hinder humans with numerous health consequences, such as asthma,
cancer, and pneumoconiosis. With a particular focus on mineral dust, this review is intended to
determine in which circumstances occupational exposure occurs in the mining and earthmoving
industries. Research followed the guidelines provided by the preferred reporting items for systematic
review and meta-analysis protocols and its extension for scoping reviews. Of the 8993 records
identified, only 24 passed both exclusion and inclusion criteria. Within the pool of results, it was
possible to identify the following variables related to dust exposure: job-related (activity, job category,
and site), engineering (equipment, transport system), technical (distance), and physical (season
and weather) variables. Due to the significant variance in protocol settings, it was challenging to
perform a general analysis, resulting in a study-by-study approach. The most significant conclusion

of this study is not related to the setting of occupational exposure, although it derives from it.
Citation: Duarte, J.; Castelo Branco, The necessity of adopting standard procedures for data collection, independent of research objective,
J.; Rodrigues, F.; Vaz, M.; Santos was demonstrated within the context of occupational exposure to mineral dust.
Baptista, J. Occupational Exposure to
Mineral Dust in Mining and Keywords: respirable dust; pollution; disease; equipment; task; extractive industry; quarrying; construction
Earthmoving Works: A Scoping
Review. Safety 2022, 8, 9. https://
doi.org/10.3390/safety8010009
Academic Editor: Tom Brijs 1. Introduction
Received: 10 November 2021

Air pollution related to particulate matter is a growing concern worldwide. The com-
Accepted: 26 January 2022
bination of airborne particulate matter and gaseous pollutants has the power to change the
Published: 30 January 2022
climate both locally and globally and is responsible for ozone depletion and acid rain [1].
However, this issue is not limited to the environment. It directly impacts human beings,
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
both in relation to living conditions and health [2]. According to the World Health Or-
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
ganisation (https://www.who.int/news/item/02-05-2018-9-out-of-10-people-worldwide-
published maps and institutional affil-
breathe-polluted-air-but-more-countries-are-taking-action (accessed on 19 July 2021)) air
iations.
pollution is a significant problem, as 9 out of 10 people breathe air containing high levels of
pollutants, and around seven million people die every year from exposure to fine particles
in polluted air.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
The sources of air pollutants fall in one of two groups: point sources, which are easily
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. identifiable and stationary; and fugitive sources, which are spatially distributed and cannot
This article is an open access article be linked to a specific point [3]. Specifically related to mineral dust, the Environmental
distributed under the terms and Protection Agency (in the United States) categorises emissions into process dust and fugitive
conditions of the Creative Commons dust. Process dust can be captured (and mitigated). In contrast, fugitive dust is settled
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// material transported by a the movement of machines or the wind [4]. It is known that
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ dust emissions significantly impact air pollution and, consequently, human health [5].
4.0/). Anthropogenic activities such as mining (and quarrying) and other earthworks involving
Safety 2022, 8, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety8010009 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/safety

Safety 2022, 8, 9 2 of 27
off-road vehicles cause health-and-safety-related issues for the involved personnel, as well
as environmental problems that can affect local communities [4,6]. Almost every activity in
mining exploitation (drilling, blasting, crushing, conveying, transporting, etc.) contributes
directly or indirectly to air pollution, particularly mineral dust emission [7].
The mineralogical and chemical composition, as well as mass and surface area of
dust particles have direct impacts on health, with outcomes including lung cancer [8,9],
bronchial asthma, chronic bronchitis [10,11], pneumoconiosis [12,13], pulmonary tubercu-
losis, occupational asthma [14], chronic obstructive pulmonary disease [9,10], dust-related
fibrosis [15], cardiovascular disease, cerebrovascular disease [16], and gastric cancer [17].
A positive association reported between inhalable silica (from mining activities) and in-
creased mortality in an exposure–response relationship, reflecting that this issue is a pub-
lic health concern [7]. Recently, it was reported that in the U.K., 12,000 lung disease
deaths per year are linked to past exposures at work. Moreover, between 2009 and
2019, the number of cases of occupational asthma reported by chest physicians pro-
gressively increased, which shows that this problem is far from being solved (https:
//www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/causdis/respiratory-diseases.pdf (accessed on 19 July 2021)).
Nonetheless, short-term exposure to respirable dust can also cause harm, especially in the
upper respiratory tract, with symptoms such as coughing, difficulty breathing, and irrita-
tion of airways [18]. With a particular focus on the mining industry, besides duration of
exposure, coexisting illnesses, and other risk factors, such as smoking [15], the severity and
prevalence of the abovementioned occupational diseases are also related to the characteris-
tics of the ore being exploited [14], as well as the geological characteristics of the mine [15].
Coal mining is still, among all mining, leading the increase in new cases of lung disease,
particularly among young miners [15]. In fact, a positive correlation between coal mining
and lung cancer has been observed [19].
Moreover, the size of pollutant particles is related to their ability to penetrate the
respiratory system [1,20]. The inhalation of dust particles poses a significant issue because
they cannot be exhaled or even cleared from the respiratory tract. They can remain within
the breathing system for a long time [21]. By definition, dust comprises “solid particles
of aerodynamic diameter less than 75 µm” [13], consisting of different materials, such as
minerals, as well as metallic and organic particles [21]. Depending on particle size, dust can
be classified as suspended particles (in a range between 0.1 and 30 µm diameter), inhalable
dust (PM10 ), respirable dust (PM4 ), and particulate matter (PM2.5 ) [3]. Still, another classi-
fication can also be found in literature: inhalable particles (size range from 10 to 20 µm),
thoracic particles (size range between 4 and 10 µm), and alveolic particles (size range below
4 µm) [22]. Some studies suggest that PM2.5 can be more hazardous to human health than
PM10 [1], leading to an increased variety of chronic diseases [23].
Due to the nature of mining and quarrying activities, every source has the potential to
emit particulate matter [20]. Between 2000 and 2015, the Industrial Minerals Association
(IMA-Europe) launched a dust monitoring program (DMP), collecting over 28,000 per-
sonal measurements of respirable dust and quartz in 23 European countries, leading to
the creation of a database. This study used a standardised protocol regarding sampling
methods, strategy, and even quality control of the retrieved data. For this reason, the data
are comparable. However, the actual settings of such exposure were not determined. It is
very demanding to proceed to dust measurements within actual operating conditions
due to several factors, namely: study setup and measuring points [24]; weather condi-
tions, such as wind speed, wind direction, presence of rain, and temperature [25]; and
mining method [26].
Even though it is not possible to control production of pollutants, it should be manage-
able [26]. The most common dust-control strategy is to spray water over the target area [27].
Literature also suggests spraying liquid calcium chloride [22], synthetic-polymer-based
products [5], or foam [27] as an alternative to water. Other processes include paving gravel
roads, planting grasses, and setting a wall near the extraction area [28]. Adopting wet
working methods or isolating dust sources (practically impossible in most cases) are also
Safety 2022, 8, 9 3 of 27
pointed to as possible control strategies [29] Other technologies are also suggested in this
vein, such as cutting tools with reduced dust-generation mechanisms, such as ultrasonic
dust-suppression systems [30]. Timely inspection and equipment maintenance can also
serve as preventive measures [29]. A simple traffic-control process is thought to decrease
the dust if trucks enter the loading area at least 20 to 30 s apart [31]. Despite their practical-
ity, these examples only mitigate the problem rather than solving it. In this sense, the main
objective of this scoping review was to determine in which circumstances dust exposure
occurs. By collecting data to answer the previous point, it may be possible to design tasks
(and the exploitations themselves) in order to diminish this problem. This analysis is
intended to guide the (re)formulation of strategies to improve occupational health and
environmental settings [32].
2. Methodology
The study methodology was based on the protocol for scoping review [33] using the pre-
ferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) [34]
and the extension for scoping reviews [35].
The first step of the research was to identify the main databases/journals to search
for information. In that sense, according to the availability of such databases and journals,
the ones related to the engineering field or multidisciplinary sciences were selected: Web
of Knowledge (Current Contents and Web of Science), Scopus, SAGE journals, Academic
Search Ultimate, American Chemical Society, Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ),
Elsevier (Science Direct), Emerald, INSPEC, IEEE Xplore, Taylor and Francis, and PubMed.
Despite the focus of this scoping review on the extractive industry rather than the con-
struction industry, in the latter, dust emission also constitutes one of the most common
risks. Reported activities such as soil loading and transporting, excavation, and other
road construction tasks [36] have common ground with the primary research objective of
this scoping review. Therefore, this field was also considered in a first approach. The se-
lected keywords to conduct the research were: “dust”, “dusting”, “particulate”, “powder”,
and “crystalline silica”, combined sequentially with “road construction”, “earthworks”,
“open pit”, “open cast”, “quarry”, “mining industry”, and “extractive industry”, resulting
in 35 different combinations. Whenever possible, the keywords were searched in “Ti-
tle+Abstract+Keywords”; other possibilities included: topic, title, or even abstract. Then,
a set of exclusion criteria was applied to filter the best information in the first stage of
research: (1) year: only papers published between 2015 and 2020 were considered; (2) type
of document: research articles (articles, articles in press); (3) type of source: peer-reviewed
journals; (4) language: English. In the second stage of research, all types of literature
published prior to 2015 were considered, as proposed by the snowballing technique [37].
The eligibility criteria were applied on a study level. The authors were mainly interested
in real operating conditions (field data) related to dust exposure/measurements in three
different settings: road construction, earthworks, and open-pit mining. This research and
the first screening phase were conducted by one researcher and confirmed by the second
researcher. All of the extracted data were analysed by three independent researchers and
confirmed by a fourth.
The primary information from each study was extracted [33]: author (and year of
publication), study objective, activity, exploited material (whenever applicable), analysed
substance, period (of the experiment), ethical committee, informed consent, population,
sample, age, sex, control group, (used) standards, duration of the occupational exposure,
source of exposure, methodology, measuring equipment, equipment calibration, sampling
time, questionnaire, validation, reported symptoms, results, and limitations. However,
due to the variability of information, it was impossible to cross examine the collected data.
The reported measurements were classified according to the available data (study variables
and experimental protocols) and gathered in form sheets. Analysis of the information was
carried out at the study level.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 4 of 27
The PRISMA guidelines include a section related to risk of bias [34]. Bias can refer
to any error introduced in research that may result in misleading results. The risk of bias
within studies was assessed with one of three possible classifications [38]: “high risk”: the
parameter has a significant effect on the results; “low risk”: the parameter does not have a
significant impact on the results; “unclear risk”: it is not possible to characterise the effect
of the parameter on the obtained results. The analysed parameters were included in table-
form in two categories: methodology and other. Methodology included task definition,
equipment type and standard application, measurement precision, sampling time, sample
representativeness, and equipment calibration; in the other category included reporting
quality and reference quality.
The first research step was carried out between July and October 2020 and updated in
October 2021.
3. Results
From the 8993 records found in the identification phase of the PRISMA methodol-
ogy [39], 4923 were excluded after applying the first exclusion criterion (article published
before 2015), 896 were removed due to document type (only research articles were con-
sidered), 26 were excluded due to source type (only peer-reviewed journal articles were
considered), 161 were removed due to language (only papers written in English were
included), and 2776 were excluded for being off-topic (in light of the objectives proposed
by this scoping review). Additionally, 160 duplicated records were removed. A total of
51 studies were assessed for eligibility, excluding 35 records that did not provide rationale
nor measurements of dust levels in any of the considered settings. From the same analysis,
six additional records were identified as new sources of information. During the research
update in October 2021, two more papers were added to the study. A total of 24 papers
were included in this study. The summary can be found in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Summary of the research, adapted from Moher et al. [39].
Using VOSviewer [40], it was possible to identify five clusters for the most used
terms in the set of included papers and the relations between them (Figure 2). Cluster 1:
assessment, particulate, PM10 , range, workplace; cluster 2: concentration, distance, drilling,
quarry, source; cluster 3: dust, exposure, haul truck, respirable dust, worker; cluster 4: depth,
pit, time; and cluster 5: dust concentration, sample.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 5 of 27
Figure 2. Keywords relations between studies.
As previously, articles were classified according to their research variables, where there
was significant heterogeneity, as well methodologies used for data collection. Additionally,
country of origin, dust-exposure-limit value (sought for in international norms whenever
(frequently) it was not provided on the paper), activity, location type, and exploited ma-
terial were also considered. It is important to not that, concerning “dust exposure limit”,
the difference in results is due to classification. For instance, the value provided for Finland
is related to occupational exposure to respirable silica dust, whereas for Taiwan, it is related
to total suspended particles for a daily standard. This information is summarised in Table 1.
Of the analysed studies, only one [43] was conducted in a construction-site envi-
ronment; all other studies concerned mines or quarry sites. The exploited materials
were, from the most commonly to least commonly exploited: coal [6,22,30–32,41,44,52,56],
iron [25,42], limestone [28,53], aggregates [24,51], taconite [47], granite [46], sandstone [55],
copper [45], gold [48], platinum [54], and manganese [25].
Regarding “studied variables”, most were inferred from the experimental protocol of
each article’s methodology, as each study’s outcome was not solidly related to the variable
itself. Therefore, each study was classified into one (or more) of the following categories:
• Job-related variables: activity, job category, site;
• Engineering variables: equipment, transport system;
• Technical variables: distance;
• Physical variables: season, weather.
Tables with the extracted data from each of the studies can be found in the Appendix A,
divided into three parts: (1) paper-related data, general information, and people-related data
(Table 1); (2) occupational exposure (Table 2); and (3) prevalence and main findings (Table 3).
Despite the experimental protocol of each paper, only 15 out of the 24 papers referred
to dust-particle size [6,22,24,25,28,31,43–45,48,49,51,52,55,56]. The remaining papers did not
specify this parameter, despite mentioning “respirable dust” [41,47,53], “respirable and
inhalable” [42,54], or just “dust” [32,50]. From the analysed data, two studies discussed
quartz analysis in addition to dust [30,46], and two other referred specifically to silica [41,47].
Further information, such as the source of exposure and sampling methodology, including
equipment, calibration, sampling time (duration) and sampling frequency is also described.
The source of exposure differed according to each study’s particular objective: specific equip-
ment, (e.g., crusher) [46]; activity (transport, drilling, crushing), dust measurements from
defined locations; or personal exposure to dust [30,47,50,53,54]. Of the studies analysing
personal exposure, only one reported the demographic data of workers [54].
Safety 2022, 8, 9 6 of 27
Table 1. Study analysis regarding dust-exposure limit, activity and location, exploited material, and variables.
Location Exploited
Author (year) Country Dust Limit Source Activity Studied Variables
Type Material
Distance, season,
Chang (2004) [28] Taiwan 0.25 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Quarry Limestone transport system,
weather
Reed & Organiscak (2005) [31] USA 2 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Quarry, mine Stone, coal Not mentioned
Onder & Yigit (2009) [41] Turkey 5 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Mine Coal Activity, site
Gholami et al. (2012) [42] Iran 4 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Mine Iron Site
Earthworks,
Faber et al. (2015) [43] Germany 3 mg·m−3 Sought for Construction site Not applicable Activity, equipment
road construction
Sastry et al. (2015) [44] India 3 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Mine Coal Distance, weather
Gautam et al. (2016) [45] India 3 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Mine (3) Copper Activity, site
Amran et al. (2017) [46] Malaysia 3 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Quarry (9) Granite Activity, equipment
Hwang et al. (2017) [47] USA 2 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Mine (6) Taconite Job category
Pandey et al. (2017) [30] India 3 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Mine (7) Coal Job category
Rabeiy et al. (2018) [48] Egypt 3 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Mine Gold Site
Richardson et al. (2018) [49] Australia 10 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Mine (3) Coal Not mentioned
Rusibamayila et al. (2018) [50] Tanzania 5 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Mine Gold Activity, job category
Sahu et al. (2018) [22] India 3 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Mine (2) Coal Weather
Sairanen & Selonen (2018) [51] Finland 0.1 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Quarry (2) Aggregates Not mentioned
Tripathy & Dash (2018) [6] India 3 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Mine Coal Activity, season, site
Wanjun & Qingxiang (2018) [52] China 4 mg·m−3 Not applicable Mining Mine Coal Activity
Chaulya et al. (2019) [25] India 3 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Mine Iron, manganese Activity
Mankar et al. (2019) [53] India 3 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Mine Limestone Activity
Sairanen & Rinne (2019) [24] Finland 0.1 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Quarry (6) Aggregates Not mentioned
Tong et al. (2019) [32] China 4 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Mine Coal Job category
Sepadi et al. (2020) [54] South Africa 3 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Mine (2) Platinum Equipment, site
Ambastha & Haritash (2021) [55] India 3 mg·m−3 Referred in article Mining Quarry Sandstone Site
Trechera et al. (2021) [56] China 4 mg·m−3 Sought for Mining Mine Coal Site
Safety 2022, 8, 9 7 of 27
Regarding the data-collection process, 10 out of the 24 articles used or applied the
experimental protocol through standards: American Society for Testing and Materials
(ASTM) [31,56]; International Organisation for Standardisation, ISO-589 (1981), ISO-1171
(1976), and ISO-562 (1974) [56]; National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health,
(NIOSH) 0600 [46,47], NIOSH 7500 [42,47], and NIOSH 7602 [54]; National Ambient Air
Quality Standards, NAAQS 2009 [6], Directorate General of Mines Safety of India [30,53];
and the Chinese Ministry of Health [32]. Additionally, each study applied its own ex-
perimental protocol (time sampling, frequency, among other variables), making it almost
impossible to compare the various studies.
4. Discussion
The analysis provided by VOSViewer [40] showed that the controlled terms related to
the papers were grouped in five clusters that, with various links between them. All of the
identified clusters were related to the research objective and selected terms, although some
keywords reflected the articles’ specific scope. Interestingly, two of the cluster concepts
were “drilling” and “haul truck”, specific situations within the research results.
However, contrary to initial expectations, it was impossible to find a common approach
among the reviewed studies, considering the quality and evidence criteria placed in their
selection. The difference between the variables and approaches used by the working groups
made it impossible to achieve a coherent and integrative view of the research carried out
in this area. However, a positive aspect is that it was possible to identify a set of relevant
work that allowed for the identification of critical areas where it is essential to deepen the
research in order to complement and confirm the obtained results.
Thus, our analysis will be carried out topic by topic, considering the collected data
and their classification according to the variables presented in Table 1. The discussion will
be oriented towards analysis, considering: job-related variables, engineering variables,
technical variables, and physical variables.
4.1. Job-Related Variables

4.1.1. Activity
Among all the eligible papers, nine collected dust samples concerning activities, which
are described in Table 2 [6,25,41,43,45,46,50,52,53].
Table 2. Activity per study.
Study Activity
[41] Overburden loading, coal loading, drilling
[43] Earthworks
[45] Mining
[46] Crushing (primary, secondary, tertiary)
Haulage, loading materials, clearance and pushing materials, measuring
[50]
the depth of holes
[6] Vehicular movement, mining
[52] Mining, transportation, dumping
[25] Loading point, transport, vehicular movement, truck movement
In Table 3, results are presented with their respective units [41,50,52,53]. Activities
such as drilling [41,53], blasting, loading, shovelling, and transportation [53] were stressed
tasks leading to high dust concentrations. However, spraying with water, which is present,
for instance, in some drilling systems, also did not prove to be significantly more effective
when compared to other solutions [41].
Safety 2022, 8, 9 8 of 27
Table 3. Dust concentration according to performed activity.
8 h conc. Range Range

Activity Study
(mg·m−3 ) (mg·m−3 ) (µg·m−3 )
Overburden loading — 0.10–3.50 —
Coal loading — 0.25–2.10 — [41]
Drilling — 0.48–7.29 —
Haulage — 0.09–0.27 —
Loading materials — 0.10–0.33 —
[50]
Clearance and pushing materials — 0.10–0.32 —
Measuring the depth of holes — 0.21–0.61 —
Mining — — 31.3–117.6
Transportation — — 31.3–112.4 [52]
Dumping — — 47.5–127.8
Transfer ore from belt conveyor 1 to belt conveyor 2 (PD1) 0.43 — —
Transfer ore from belt conveyor 1 to pipe conveyor (PD2) 1.04 — —
Shovel operation (PD3) 0.37 — —
Dumper operation (PD4) 0.43 — —
Shovel operation (PD5) 0.39 — —
Drill helper (PD6) 0.32 — —
Dumper operation transferring ore to crusher (PD7) 0.40 — —
Dumper loading to crusher (AD1) 0.54 — —
Crushing of limestone (AD2) 0.25 — —
Transfer limestone from belt conveyor to pipe conveyor (AD3) 0.27 — —
Dumper movement (AD4) 0.25 — —
Dumper and other service vehicle movement (AD5) 0.33 — —
Backhoe operator loading onto tipper (PD8) 0.80 — —
Backhoe loading overburden onto tipper (PD9) 1.04 — — [53]
Tata Hitachi operation (PD10) 0.85 — —
Drilling operation (PD13) 1.23 — —
Movement of dumpers, tipper, and mine vehicles (AD6) 1.14 — —
Drilling operation (AD7) 1.52 — —
Shovel loading overburden onto tipper (AD8) 1.42 — —
Dumper loading ore onto tipper (AD9) 1.04 — —
Transfer ore from one conveyor to another (AD10) 2.64 — —
Transfer ore from the belt conveyor to pipe conveyor (AD11) 1.52 — —
8 h conc.: 8-h concentration; PD: personal dust; AD: area dust;— No available information.
Only one study reported dust-concentration measurements for an eight-hour period,

therefore comparable with the standards [53], with every value below the permissible limit
(3 mg·m−3 in India, where it took place). However, the authors note that the experimental
protocol was applied right after the rainy season, affecting the measurements. Nonetheless,
the influence area of the transfer point between the crusher’s discharge belt and another
belt (AD10) presents 75% of the permissible limit.
Overall, rock cutting/crushing operations are generally a dry process and gener-
ate large amounts of respirable dust [30,47]. In crushing operations, tertiary crushing
generates twice the amount of particles as secondary crushing [24]. Focusing mainly on
respirable crystalline silica, it was possible to conclude that the combination of secondary
and tertiary crushing plants leads to higher concentrations of this substance [46]. On the
other hand, this dust concentration can be lower during milling, as this process is usually
wet [47]. Comparing crushing and drilling, the former produces more coarse particles than
the latter [8].
4.1.2. Job Category

The relationship between worker job and dust exposure was referred to in four
studies [30,32,47,50].
Safety 2022, 8, 9 9 of 27
In one of the studies, independent of the mining sector (mining, crushing, concentrat-
ing, pelletising, shop mobile, shop stationery, and office/control room), the maintenance
technician was the worker associated with higher exposure to dust [47]. This conclu-
sion was found across the analysed mines due to the similarity in mining and processing
of taconite.
However, the general results show that workers performing activities directly related
to dust generation, such as (manual) drill operators [32] and the quality controllers (of the
holes, in blasting) [50], were the ones showing higher exposure to dust. On the contrary,
the measures taken of truck operators, excavator operators, and dozer operators, besides
not being statistically different, showed that working inside cabins with air-conditioning
systems decreases exposure to dust [50]. Despite the fact that this relation was not directly
assessed, one of the studies reported that workers engaged in crushing activities, loading
crushed material and drilling, are more vulnerable to such exposure [55].
Other authors analysed jobs in different mining operations, organising the results
according to increasing particle-size exposure. Machine-operator exposure occurs with
particle sizes between 2 and 3 µm; drill operator, dozer operator, and shovel operator
between, 4 and 5 µm; and cable man, between 7 and 8 µm. These professions report
exposure to particles with an average size below 10 µm.
Processes involving cutting rock generate many fine particles, which usually leads to
higher dust-exposure values. In this study, more than 50% of the total samples above the
maximum exposure limit contained particles of less than 5 µm. This issue is of particular
concern since it is evidenced in the literature that sizes of this order of magnitude are
potentially the leading cause of numerous lung-related chronic diseases [47].
4.1.3. Site
Eight selected studies analysed specific-site (location) dust concentrations [6,41,42,45,48,54–56].
Drilling is one of the most hazardous activities when considering exposure to dust [41].
The face of operation was found to have measurements with higher particle concentra-
tions. Additionally, coal-handling plants and stockyards were also referred to as critical
locations. Regardless of particle type (measured respirable dust concentration or total dust
concentration), extraction site and crusher section are two sites with higher dust levels in
the long run. In contrast, in administration offices, the results show the most negligible
dust content [42]. This is in line with the observations from other studies [48].
Particle travel time was evaluated in one of the reviewed field studies [45]. Its results
showed that it takes nearly one hour for a particle to travel from a depth of 168 m to the pit
surface and that this happens independent of particle size. However, when an open-pit
mine is exploited at more shallow depths, the travelling time between benches (10 m apart)
is only 7 min. Analysis of different scenarios (in more than one mine) led the authors
to conclude that mine geometry is essential when reflecting upon occupational exposure
parameters. The same study also showed that the dust concentration was higher at the
source of exposure and decreased in every direction.
Additionally, and with relation to particle size, the results point out that alveoli particle
matter disperses more quickly than larger particles (thoracic and inhalable). Only 9 to
30% of alveolic particles settle within a (vertical) distance of between 18 m and 20 m,
compared to 19% to 37% of thoracic and 23% to 39% of inhalable particles. Another study
concluded that smaller particles can travel great distances, even affecting the populations
in the vicinity of mines [55].
4.2. Engineering Variables

4.2.1. Equipment
Only three studies referred to a link between dust concentration and equipment [43,46,54].
Few pieces of equipment were mentioned in the studies, but some conclusions could
be drawn from analysis of the available data. Trucks travelling along unpaved roads are
Safety 2022, 8, 9 10 of 27
related to high dust concentrations [43]. The same study remarked that rollers generate
mostly coarse particles as a dust source.
The crusher is also one of the most frequently mentioned pieces of equipment when
analysing dust concentrations, especially in plants that combined secondary and tertiary
crushing (usually using hydrocone cyclone crushers) [46].
Table 4 shows the results of excavators and front-end loader activities, expressed in
mg·m−3 [54]. Operating conditions also impact exposure values, and these differences are
verifiable for both inhalable and respirable dust.
Table 4. Main results of Sepadi et al. [54] concerning equipment.
Time-Weighted
Particle size Equipment Facility
Average
A 0.028
Excavator
Respirable dust (<10 µm) B 0.026
Front-end loader A 0.022
A 0.132
Excavator
Respirable dust (<100 µm) B 0.029
Front-end loader A 0.295
4.2.2. Transport System

Only one study analysed the possible relationship between transport system and
dust concentration [28]. It was developed considering two types of transporting system:
vertical wall and conventional (steps) in a limestone quarry. The main results showed that
the vertical wall, a closed system, prevented most fine particles from spreading. On the
contrary, in the conventional method, the dust concentration was higher (see Table 5,
expressed in µm·m−3 ). It is essential to state that these results may not be time-weighted
averages, as there was no information available concerning time frame.
Table 5. Relation between transport system and dust concentration [28].
Monitor Site Term Vertical Well Standard Deviation Conventional System STD
Total suspended particles 301 36 211 25
Extraction site PM10 68 14 183 18
PM2.5 28 5 56 9
Total suspended particles 186 21 173 10
Conveyor system PM10 60 15 125 25
PM2.5 45 13 101 31
STD—Standard Deviation.
4.3. Technical Variables

Distance
In general, there is a relationship between distance and total dust concentration [28].
As expected, the results showed that the overall dust concentration decreased with increas-
ing distance from the source. According to two studies, this is also particularly true in
relation to activities such as crushing [8,44]. Some authors reported that with increased
distance from the exposure source, dust concentration decreased by about 89% [44]. In par-
ticular, dust concentration from drilling activities spreads up to 80–100 m from the source,
where the heavier fractions of dust settle [44]. For this reason, some authors suggest that
the proportion of fine dust tends to increase with increasing distance from the source [49],
as PM10 can travel up to 100 km (or more) and stay in the atmosphere for days, whereas
Safety 2022, 8, 9 11 of 27
PM2.5 can travel as far as thousands of kilometres, staying in the air for weeks. Coarse
particulates usually deposit quickly and within short distances of the source [3].
4.4. Physical Variables

4.4.1. Season
Only two studies made reference to season when assessing dust exposure [6,28],
with interesting conclusions.
In one of the studies, it is reported that in the hotter seasons (spring and summer), par-
ticles are shorter due to low air humidity, as opposed to during the colder seasons (autumn
and winter). This happens because the increased moisture causes suspended matter to
forming larger particles. The maximum dust concentration was achieved during summer
(hourly concentrations of 1100 µg·m−3 ) [28], falling outside of the average concentration
range of 600–820 µm·m−3 . Conversely, other studies observed that both PM2.5 and PM10
concentrations were higher during winter [6]. However, this was attributable, according to
the authors, to the prevalence of anticyclonic conditions.
The influence of season is, for obvious reasons, related to weather conditions, which
will be discussed in the following section.
4.4.2. Weather
Dust concentration related to weather was referred to in two studies [28,44].
Dust concentration has an almost linear relation with wind speed at a measurement
point at 300 m from the extraction outline [28]. Additionally, it was verified that the aerosol
concentration increased with increasing wind speed, despite decreasing with increased
humidity. This latter fact occurs due increasing particle size (as a result of combination
with water), leading to easier deposition. The other study mentioned that dust concentrates
the downwind, and upwind of the source, there is no significant dust concentration [44].
Interestingly, it was reported that particles moving in the downward direction (within the
pit) take longer to escape from the zone, which increases the duration exposure to dust,
meaning that attention should be paid to the behaviour of particles [45]. It is also stated
that villages in downwind locations can suffer from traveling particles [55].
4.5. Other Variables

Interestingly, one study reported and analysed workers’ respiratory symptoms, and
49.1% of total workers were found suffered from phlegm, 42.9% from breathlessness,
and 37.5% from a cough. Despite the fact that exposure to dust remained below the maxi-
mum exposure value, these workers showed a high prevalence of respiratory symptoms [50].
The relationship between dust exposure and other variables, such as air humidity or
wind velocity, is complex and cannot be summarised in this analysis, our analysis was
carried out case by case, and the relationship itself is not entirely clear. Despite gathering
data regarding weather parameters, could be proposed. However, the risk of exposure
depends on, among other factors, the characteristics of the dust, activity, duration of
exposure, characteristics of workers, and use of personal protective equipment [46,54].
Notwithstanding the results, particular attention should be continuously paid to this issue
because exposure, in the long term, may impair the health of workers [53].
4.6. Bias
Risk of bias [38] (Table 6) was assessed at the study level. Papers were analysed accord-
ing to methodology (task definition, equipment type, standard application, measurement
precision, sampling time, sample representativeness, and equipment calibration), and other
factors (reporting quality and reference quality). The possibility of each parameter having
impacted on the outcome, therefore representing some type of bias, was determined using
one of the classifications [38]: “high risk”, “low risk”, and “unclear risk”. Notwithstanding
that the experimental protocols were well-defined, primarily regarding task definition,
no information about equipment calibration or measurement precision was provided. It is
Safety 2022, 8, 9 12 of 27
important to note that this assessment is subjective and depends on the information re-
ported in each study. Whenever the required piece of information is clearly stated in the
text, the classification is more or less direct, according to the suitability of its methods
(for instance, if the used equipment was appropriate for the study’s needs). In cases of
no information, it is not possible to infer a relationship. When the methodology is not
appropriate or the results (obtained by the studies) do not align with the methodology,
risk of bias is elevated.
Table 6. Bias analysis of each study.
Methodology Other
Sampling
Study Task Equipment Standard Measurement Sampling Equipment Reporting References
Represen-
Definition Type Application Precision Time Calibration Quality Quality
tativeness
[28] LR LR HR UR HR HR HR LR HR
[31] HR LR LR UR LR LR HR LR HR
[42] HR LR LR UR UR UR LR HR HR
[43] LR LR HR UR UR UR LR LR LR
[45] LR LR HR UR HR UR HR LR LR
[46] LR LR LR UR LR UR LR LR LR
[47] LR LR LR UR UR UR LR LR HR
[30] LR LR LR UR UR UR LR LR LR
[48] HR UR HR UR UR UR HR HR LR
[49] LR LR HR UR UR UR LR LR LR
[50] LR LR HR UR LR UR LR LR LR
[25] LR LR HR UR LR LR HR LR LR
[51] LR LR HR UR HR LR HR LR LR
[6] LR LR LR UR LR UR HR LR LR
[52] LR LR HR UR LR UR HR LR LR
[9] HR UR LR UR LR HR HR LR LR
[53] LR LR LR UR LR UR HR LR HR
[8] LR LR HR UR HR LR HR LR LR
[32] LR LR LR UR HR LR LR LR LR
[54] LR LR LR UR LR LR LR LR HR
[55] LR UR HR UR LR LR HR LR HR
[56] HR HR HR HR HR HR HR HR HR
HR: high risk; LR: low risk; UR: unclear risk.
With the exception of equipment type, every other variable in the Methodology
section demonstrates the necessity of improving reporting quality concerning the applied
experimental protocols.
4.7. Study Limitations

One of the main limitations of this study is that the collected data could not be
compared due to a lack of specificity of the studies concerning aims, applied protocol,
and presentation of results. This led to a paper-by-paper analysis that does not provide a
general view on the topic, making it difficult to standardise design solutions. The idea of
using a common standardised protocol is stressed in the literature [57]. Additionally, it was
not possible to infer whether the culture of each country influenced practices. For instance,
it is mentioned in one of the studies that although remaining below the national standard,
Safety 2022, 8, 9 13 of 27
the dust exposure was way above international standards [41]. Uncertainties related
to exposure assessment may influence risk-management practices, which may, in turn,
negatively impact the health of workers [58]. Overall, it was impossible to determine
the extent to which the results of the reviewed studies truly represent real-life working
conditions. Therefore, this scoping review mainly supports the need to apply or develop
standardised protocols concerning information, such as that reflected in Table 6.
5. Conclusions
Air pollution is a growing issue worldwide, and dust emission from anthropogenic
activities affects not only directly exposed workers but also surrounding communities [1].
Dust is produced in almost every mining activity and similar tasks, such as road construc-
tion and earthmoving tasks [16]. Common dust-control strategies include spraying water,
although other mechanisms are starting to be developed, such as ultrasonic suppression
systems [30]. Despite significant downward trends in exposure to respirable quartz and
respirable silica, according to a recent assessment [59], deaths associated with this issue
still occur, with a special focus on pneumoconiosis [60]. Some authors suggest that high-
risk workers need training in use of personal protective equipment and that dust-control
mechanisms are still far from what they need to be [30]. The aim of this scoping review
was to determine the specific circumstances under which exposure to dust occurs within
the context of open-pit mining and quarrying, including research from other fields with
similar tasks, such as road construction and earthworks and identifying measures to mit-
igate or even eliminate dust production. Within the reviewed studies, it was possible to
identify the following variables related to dust exposure: job-related (activity, job category,
and site), engineering (equipment, transport system), technical (distance), and physical
(season and weather) variables. However, the significant variance in protocol settings made
it difficult to perform any general analysis, resulting in a study-by-study approach. Despite
this, data were grouped by assessed variable (whenever possible). Results showed that
drilling was often pointed to as a task leading to higher levels of dust exposure [41,53],
although every activity related to rock processing (blasting and loading, for instance) also
had a positive association with high dust levels [53]. Workers performing their job inside
climatised vehicles experienced less exposure to dust [50] than workers whose work leads
directly to dust generation [32].
Notwithstanding the task, it was reported in one study that the size of the particles
was below 10 µm [30]. The face of operation where most work occurs was naturally the site
where the highest dust levels were measured. One study addressed particle travel time and
concluded that mine geometry is an important factor reflecting occupational exposure [45].
Few types of equipment were mentioned related to dust exposure: drill, crusher, truck,
excavator, and loader. Concerning this variable, the focus was on the setting; for example,
trucks travelling on unpaved roads were associated with high dust levels [43]. Other specific
assumptions were described but not in a way constituting data. Transport system was
analysed in just one of the studies and only compared two methodologies [28]. Therefore,
no general conventions can be drawn. According to the same author, dust concentration
decreased with increased distance from the source, and this was also verified in other
contexts [44,49]. Season as a variable was acknowledged with relation to moisture or
rain, which depend on weather and specific factors, such as wind direction and humidity.
Concerning mitigating measures, none of the studies analysed potential mechanisms for
solving this problem.
Practical Implications
This scoping review highlights the necessity of adopting standard procedures for
data collection, independent of research objective. It is mentioned in the literature that
this process is quite demanding, as it is conditioned by each specific setting, which, as a
standalone condition, already makes it difficult to properly apply in the protocol [8].
Nonetheless, with the collected data, one study suggests the following steps [58]:
Safety 2022, 8, 9 14 of 27
(1) A comprehensive description of the occupational setting;

(2) Analysis of the mineralogical characteristics of the hazardous agent;
(3) Measurement of the exposure to respirable dust, according to international standards,
in the workers’ breathing zone during a full shift.
Although these steps seem achievable, they are not applied often. The same author
also states that it is important to preserve historical data so that a database can be organised
that can help determine more strategic actions concerning the health and safety of both
workers and operations.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, J.D., J.C.B., and J.S.B.; methodology, J.D.; validation, J.C.B.,
F.R., M.V., and J.S.B.; formal analysis, J.D.; investigation, J.D., J.C.B., F.R., M.V., and J.S.B.; writing—
original draft preparation, J.D.; writing—review and editing, J.C.B., F.R., M.V., and J.S.B.; supervision,
J.C.B. and J.S.B.; project administration, J.C.B., F.R., and J.S.B.; funding acquisition, J.D. All authors
have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia (FCT) through INEGI,
under LAETA (PROA) project SFRH/BD/143241/2019. The authors would also like to acknowledge
the Doctoral Program in Occupational Safety and Health from the Faculty of Engineering of the
University of Porto for the funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 15 of 27
Appendix A
Table 1. Paper-related data, general information, and people-related data of each study.
Paper-Related Data General Information People-Related Data

Ethical Informed Age Control
Study Objective Substance Time Period Population Sample Sex
Committee Consent (Years) Group
To characterise dust emission and
Dust (TSP, PM2.5 ,
[28] to identify locations of pollution NM NA NA NM NM NM NM NM
PM10 )
sources
To characterise dust generated
[31] Dust (PM10 ,) Summer of 2002 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
from haul trucks
To assess occupational exposure Dust (respirable),
[41] 1994–2005 NA NA NM NM NM NM NM
to dust silica
Dust (respirable,
[42] To determine dust concentrations NM NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
inhalable)
To estimate annual emissions Dust (PM1 , PM2.5 , Earthworks: 3 days,
[43] NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
from construction work PM10 ) road construction: 3 days
To develop models to predict
[44] respirable dust-particle Dust (PM2.5 , PM10 ) Pre-summer, summer and winter NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
concentration
21–23 May 2013 (Location 1),
To investigate particulate-matter Dust (PM 10–20 µm,
[45] 4–6 June 2013 (Location 2), NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
concentration profiles 4–10 µm, and <4 µm)
12–24 October 2013 (Location 3)
To determine exposure levels to
respirable dust and respirable
[46] Dust, quartz NM Yes NM 200 70 NM NM NM
crystalline silica of
crusher operators
Mine 1: January–April 2010; Mine 2:
To assess levels of exposure to November 2010–February 2011; Mine
Dust (respirable),
[47] respirable dust and 3: February–May 2011; Mine 4 June Yes Yes NM 232 NM NM NM
silica (respirable)
respirable silica 2010; Mine 5: July–September 2010;
Mine 6: October 2010
To characterise exposure to
[30] Dust, quartz 2012–2014 NM NM NM 69 NM NM NM
respirable dust
To study occupational health
[48] exposure to physical and Dust (PM10 ) NM NA NA NM NM NM NM NM
chemical hazards
Safety 2022, 8, 9 16 of 27
Table 1. Cont.
Paper-Related Data General Information People-Related Data

Ethical Informed Age Control
Study Objective Substance Time Period Population Sample Sex
Committee Consent (Years) Group
Dust (PM2.5 ,
[49] To study particulate emission NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
PM 0.3–20 µm, PM10 )
To study respiratory impairment
Male,
[50] and personal respirable exposure Dust NM NM Yes NM 112 21–60 NM
female
to dust
To study inhalable, thoracic, Dust (PM 10–20 µm,
[25] Winter NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
and alveoli particle concentrations 4–10 µm, and <4 µm)
To study dust emission (and
Dust (TSP, PM1 ,
[51] dispersion) from drilling in Winter NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
PM2.5 , PM10 )
natural stone quarries
[6] NM Dust (PM2.5 , PM10 ) Summer and winter 2015–2016 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
To study the concentration and
[52] distribution of PM2.5 and PM10 in Dust (PM2.5 , PM10 ) NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
open-pit mines
To predict dust concentrations 7–22 December 2015, 30 January to
[9] Dust (PM2.5 , PM10 ) NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
from several mine operations 16 February 2016
To study respirable dust September 2013 (post-monsoon
[53] concentrations and free Dust (respirable) period), February 2014 NM Yes NM NM NM NM NM
silica content (pre-monsoon period)
To study dust emission (and
Dust (TSP, PM1 ,
[8] dispersion) from crushing in Winter NA NA NM NM NM NM NM
PM2.5 , PM10 )
open-pit quarries
To study exposure levels at
[32] Dust August 2016–October 2016 NM NM NM NM NM NM NM
four workplaces
37 years
To study dust-exposure risk at Dust (inhalable and (range Male,
[54] October 2018 NM NM 100 34 NM
two wasterock crusher plants respirable) 23 to female
68 years)
To study emission of respirable
dust from stone quarrying, Dust (PM2.5 and
[55] June 2019 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
potential health effects, PM10
and its management
To evaluate potential dust Dust (PM2.5 , PM4 ,
[56] NM NA NA NA NA NA NA NA
emissions in an open-pit coal mine PM10 )
NM; not mentioned; NA: not applicable.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 17 of 27
Table 2. Occupational exposure characterisation per study.
Occupational Exposure
Study Duration of the

Equipment Sampling Sampling
Standards Occupational Source of Exposure Methodology Measuring Equipment
Calibration Time Frequency
Exposure
Dust was collected at different distances: 0.05, 0.08,
0.1, 0.15, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 1, 7, 10, 11, and 15 km from
3 times per
the extraction outline. Additionally, five more Graseby high-volume sampler
[28] NM NM NM NM 1h season and at
monitoring stations were considered. The particle (GM-2000), Kimoto PM10
each receptor
sizes were determined, and dust composition was
analysed through chromatography.
The study was conducted in two sites measuring
approximately 30 m: a surface-stone quarry
(Virginia) and a coal-preparation plant
(Pennsylvania). The first had a slight grade and
Personal Data RAM (MIE),
ASTM was the main access to the pit. The second was flat 6–7 h per
[31] NM Haul truck Personal sampling pumps NM Every 2 s
standards and was the main access to the waste dump. Seven day
(Escort ELF), Cascade Impactor
monitoring stations were placed for data collection.
However, only two were considered for respirable
dust: one adjacent to the road and one on the
opposite side of the road.
Data were collected from the Can Lignite
Overburden loading, Corporation once a year at five different locations.
Gravimetric dust equipment
stockyard, coal loading, Dust conditions were assessed, and dust samples
[41] NM NM (Casella AFC 123), infrared NM 4h 1 per year
drilling, were dried and weighed. Additionally, silica
spectrophotometer
and coal-handling plant content was determined. An ANOVA statistical
test was used for data treatment.
Samples of total and respirable dust were collected
by the gravimetric method. The number of
Mountain slash, crusher, collected samples was 19 for mountain slash
[42] NIOSH 7500 NM Sampling pump (SKC) NM NM NM
administration, road (excavation), 19 for various crushers, 9 for
administration, and 5 for road. SPSS was used for
data treatment.
All measurements were performed between 20 and
60 m downwind of the sites. Measurements were
Mobile aerosol research
taken at a height of 4 m. Overall meteorological
laboratory (MoLA), weather
data were also collected, as well as trace gases
station (WXT520), air quality
(NOx, CO, SO2 , O3 , and CO2 ). Total particulate
[43] NM NA Earthworks, equipment monitoring system (Airpointer Yes NM NM
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon (p-PAH) mass
and LI840), FMPSS (Model
concentration was recorded. Particle size
3091), OPC (Grimm
distributions were analysed by a fast-mobility
Aerosoltechnik)
particle-sizer spectrometer (FMPSS) and an optical
particle counter (OPC).
Safety 2022, 8, 9 18 of 27
Table 2. Cont.

Exposure
Measurements were collected at different distances
from the drilling site, considering different wind
directions in three phases: (1) pre-summer, (2) Personal dust monitor (5),
during summer, (3) during winter. Monitoring of point sampler (2),
[44] NM NM Drilling NM 1h Hourly basis
air quality was carried out, and both this parameter meteorological monitoring
and dust emission were registered at different station
distances from the drilling operations,
with different wind directions.
Measurements were taken at different benches
(heights) of the open casts, Malanjkhand Copper
Project (MCP), Kiriburu Iron OreMine (KIOM),
and Meghahatuburu Iron Ore Mine (MIOM).
Wind speed and wind direction were also Portable aerosol spectrometer
Drilling, excavation, registered. In MCP, the activities were drilling, (model 1.108), portable weather
[45] NM NM NM 30 min 1 min
loading, transport excavation, loading (shovel), and transport stations (Watch Dog
(dumper). Sampling occurred at four benches 2000 Series)
located at 412, 448, 460, and 580 mRL. In KIOM,
these sampling points were located at 818 mRL,
and in MIOM, the sampling points were at
846 mRL.
Long-term personal breathing-zone samples were
collected for each shift. Air velocity and humidity
were also measured to determine temperature and
NIOSH Manual
humidity during the field campaign. These Sampling pump (SKC),
Analytical
[46] NM Crusher measurements were taken at several locations, anemometer and hygrometer Yes 8h NM
Method No.
during the morning and afternoon. The samples (TSI, 8386-M-GB)
0600
were analysed at an independent laboratory.
Data analysis was carried out using Industrial
Hygiene Statistic (IH STAT V. 235).
Each worker wore a personal air-sampling pump
on the waist, with the sampler located in the
Mining, crushing,
breathing zone for 70% of their work shift. For each
concentrating,
NIOSH 0600, worker, the study was conducted during three Personal air-sampling pump
[47] NM pelletising, mobile shop, Yes NM NM
NIOSH 7500 different shifts, and one blank sample per day was (Apex Pro pump, Casella)
stationery shop,
also collected (quality control). The data received
office/control
statistical treatment through ANOVA analysis.
The information was grouped in SEG form.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 19 of 27
Table 2. Cont.

Exposure
DGMS Dust measurements of 11 categories of workers Personal dust sampler
guidelines for were collected from an open cast and underground (Sidekick, SKC), X-ray
Drill operator, shovel
conducting works. Respirable dust collected on the filter was diffractometry (model
[30] NM operator, dozer Yes NM NM
respirable analysed using the Fourier transform infrared Ultima-IV),
operator, cable man
airborne dust spectrometry. Particle-size distribution and quartz SEM-EDX(FE-SEMSupra 55),
survey content were also analysed. Mastersizer 2000
33 different site Measurements were collected at 33 sites (both
[48] NM NM NM NM NM NM
locations surface and underground).
Three techniques were adopted: (1) low-volume
gravimetric technique to measure longer-term (1) MiniVol portable air
(1) Yes; (2)
concentrations beyond the boundary of each mine; samplers (Airmetrics); (2) 18 min–
[49] NM NM Different site locations NM; (3) NM
(2) whenever an interesting activity occurred, optical particulate monitor 22 days
NM
an optical particulate monitor was used (particulate (1.105 Grimm); (3) NM
range: 0.3–20 µm); (3) microscopy analysis.
Among different job
groups (truck,
excavator, and dozer Measurements were collected using air sampling
operators, quality pumps on similar exposure groups at breathing
Air sampling pumps (Aircheck
controller), different level. A questionnaire was used to determine
[50] NM At least 1 year XR 5000), spirometer (KoKo Yes Full shift NM
activities (haulage, respiratory symptoms, and lung function was
Legend S× 1000)
loading materials, measured using spirometry. SPSS was used for
clearance and pushing data treatment.
materials, measuring
the depth of holes)
Seven residential sites (RS) and ten mine locations
(M) near the two open-cast mines were considered.
R1–R3 were located near the coal transportation
road from mine 1, R4 and R6 were near mine
Aerosol spectrometer (Model
2 open cast, R5 was located near a road used for
[25] NM NA Different site locations 1.108), portable weather station NM 6–8 h 1 min
coal transportation by both mines, and R7 was
(Model WatchDog 2000)
located away from the mining area. Meteorological
parameters, such as relative humidity, temperature,
wind speed, and wind direction, were registered.
SPSS was used for data treatment.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 20 of 27
Table 2. Cont.

Exposure
Dust mass concentrations measurements were
collected near the drills and at the same level at
different distances downwind, upwind,
Nephelometers (Turnkey
and side-wind. The sampling height was 1.5 m
[51] NM NM Drilling Osiris), weather station NM 15 min 5s
(approximately breathing level). Weather data,
(EasyWeather)
such as temperature, humidity, absolute and
relative pressure, wind speed and direction,
wind-gust speed, and rainfall, were also registered.
National
Ambient Air Measurements were collected from eight
Quality monitoring stations. PM10 and PM2.5 Respirable dust samplers
[6] Standard NA Different site locations concentrations were calculated based on the (Envirotech APM 460 NL and NM 24 h NM
(NAAQS 2009), differences in the weight of the filters before and Envirotech APM 550)
I.S.: 5182 Part after sampling.
XIV (2000)
PM measurements were monitored at three sites in
the mine: (1) in the pit, away from the operating
Mining, transportation,
[52] NM NM equipment; (2) near the mining and transport Beta-ray particle monitor NM NM 1 min
dumping
equipment; (3) around the pit. The data received
statistical treatment.
National
Measurements of baseline air quality were
Ambient Air
monitored at 25 different station locations.
[9] Quality NA Different site locations NM NM 24 h NM
The resulting data were used to develop
Standard
emission models.
(NAAQS)
Measurement of respirable dust and determination
of free silica content: 12 dust samples were
collected in September 2013 (five area samples and
seven personal samples). Another 12 were
collected in February 2014 (six area samples and six
DGMS
Different site locations, individual samples). The equipment was placed Personal dust sampler 6–7 h per
[53] sampling NM Yes NM
activity between 5–15 m away from the worker for area (Sidekick 51Ex) day
guidelines
sampling, at breathing level height. For personal
sampling, the equipment was attached to the
worker for an entire shift. Silica estimation was
carried out through the Fourier transform infrared
(FTIR) spectroscopy.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 21 of 27
Table 2. Cont.

Exposure
Measurements were taken at different distances
from the crushers, from downwind, upwind,
Nephelometers (Turnkey
and crosswind. The setup was conducted under
[8] NM NA Crushing Osiris), weather station NM 15 min 5s
real conditions and at crusher level during daylight.
(EasyWeather)
Background concentrations were collected at each
quarry during the night.
Standard
specifications of
air sampling for Measurements were collected three times: 10-10 h
hazardous Coalface, heading face, 15, 14-14 h 15, 17 h-17 h 15 every working day.
[32] substances NM shotcrete point, A total of 582 dust samples were taken: 140 coal Dust sampler (HXF-35) Yes 15 min NM
monitoring in trans-shipment face, 168 heading face, 124 shotcrete point,
the workplace, 150 trans-shipment points.
Ministry of
Health 2004
Crusher plant: crushing,
loading, offloading,
screening, final storage, The protocol was divided into three parts: (1)
Facility A:
transporting, cleaning, walkthrough observation, (2) self-administered Multi-fraction Institute of
36.8 years old,
[54] NIOSH 7602 water sprayer, diesel questionnaire, (3) static dust sampling (18 dust Occupational Medicine (IOM) Yes 8h NM
Facility B:
attendant, samples: nine inhalable and nine respirable). samplers
36.9 years old
supervising/foreman, Statistical analysis was carried out.
weighing bridge,
welding
Samples were collected from four locations.
Ambient temperature, wind speed, humidity, Portable microprocessor-based
Haul road, crushing
[55] NM NA and dominant wind direction were also registered. particulate monitor NM 1h 60 s
area, pit area
The instrument was placed at a height of 1.5 m (HAZDUST-EPAM 5000 model)
from the ground.
Samples of deposited dust were collected in trays
left at each location for 30 min until reaching
ISO-589, 1981,
200–500 g. Passive stubs were also used for 1 h.
ISO-1171, 1976,
Coal-working fronts, After, they were analysed for particle size and
ISO-562, 1974,
[56] NA tailings-handling sites, geochemical and mineralogical patterns. Passive stubs NM 1h NM
ASTM D-3286,
road-traffic sites Additionally, online measurements of ambient air
D-3302M,
concentrations of particulate matter, black carbon,
D3174–12
and ultrafine particles were performed in the same
mine zones where DD was sampled.
NM: not mentioned; NA: not applicable.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 22 of 27
Table 3. Prevalence and main findings per study.
Prevalence Main Findings

Study Reported Reported
Questionnaire Validation Results Limitations
Symptoms Disease(s)
Limestone exploitation processes cause high dust-emission rates, where
the PM2.5 /TSP is between 0.15 and 0.28 and PM10 /TSP is between
[28] NA NA NA NA NM
0.31 and 0.78. The study determined that the best control measure is
spraying water.
A total of 14.5% of the airborne dust generated from haul trucks
consisted of material under 10 µm, and 3.5% was material under 3.5 µm.
[31] NA NA NA NA A total of 85.5% of the dust consisted of larger particles that do not pose NM
a (respirable) threat to the truck operator. The time period of following
a truck with maximum exposure occurred between 4 and 15 s.
Activities leading to higher dust emissions were, ordered
highest–lowest): drilling, coal-handling plant, stockyard, overburden
[41] NA NA NA NA loading, and coal loading. The measured values were maintained NM
below the Turkish standard; however, they were above the
international standards.
The highest respirable dust concentration was measured in the
extraction section (10.6 mg·m−3 ), and the lowest concentration was
measured in the administration section (4.02 mg·m−3 ). The highest
[42] NM NM NM NM NM
total dust concentration was measured in the crusher section
(94.3 mg·m−3 ), and the lowest concentration was measured in the
administration section (16.6 mg·m−3 ).
Emission factors for PM10 were related to earthworks and
plate-compactor under dry weather conditions. Comparing emissions
[43] NA NA NA NA NM
under dry and wet weather conditions before and after wetting the
ground showed that dust can be reduced to a significant degree.
Measured dust concentrations were between 693 ug·m−3 and
[44] NA NA NA NA 126 ug·m−3 . It was confirmed that dust spread up to 80–100 m from NM
the source.
No relation was found between PM concentration and wind speed.
The inhalable fraction of PM varied in the range of 37–52%.
[45] NA NA NA NA NM
The fraction of thoracic PM was between 31–36%, and alveoli PM was
between 17–29%.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 23 of 27
Table 3. Cont.

Symptoms Disease(s)
Overall mean worker exposure to respirable dust was 0.426, and to
[46] NA NA NA NA NM
respirable silica was 0.091 mg m−3 .
Not all SEGs were present at the
all mines. Some samples were
The highest average concentrations of respirable dust were measured excluded: three were overloaded
[47] NM NM NM NM in Mine 1, and the lowest were measured in Mine 6. There was little with particles, and six exhibited
variability across the results for the six mines. low sampling volume.
Some samples fell outside of the
limit of detection (LOD).
Workers in open-cast mines are exposed to high levels of respirable
dust. Considering that lower the particles indicate the harmfulness
level, the job categories can be “ordered” (from highest to lowest):
[30] NM NM NM NM machine operator, drill man (UG), roof bolter (UG), drill operator (OC), NM
SDL operator (UG), dozer operator (OC), belt operator (UG), shovel
operator (OC), explosive carrier (UG), trammer (U.G.), and cable
man (UG/OC).
All the measured values were under the permissible level, except for
[48] NA NA NA NA NM
access to the underground mine.
Due to technical limitations, direct
Results are in the form of percentages. Particulate size fractions were comparison of the optical-derived
[49] NA NA NA NA
found to vary according to mine activities. source-concentration data is not
meaningful.
Cough, The results show that the overall dust exposure geometric mean was
Questionnaire phlegm, 0.26 mg·m−3 over a mean sampling period of 8 h (ranging between
[50] on respiratory Yes breathlessness, NM 7 and 11 h). The results regarding respiratory symptoms were: phlegm NM
symptoms wheezing, (49.1%), breathlessness (42.9%), cough (37.5%), wheezing (18.8%),
chest tightness and chest tightness (10.7%).
The results showed that the average PM concentrations in mining sites
[25] NA NA NA NA were 1.2–2 times the concentrations at residential sites. PM peak NM
concentrations were observed during peak production time.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 24 of 27
Table 3. Cont.

Symptoms Disease(s)
Dust concentrations were highest at downwind points, and the lowest
Nephelometer capacity is not very
concentrations were measured upwind from the drill. Increasing wind
[51] NA NA NA NA high when measuring all sizes of
speed led to decreased dust concentration. Drilling produces the most
particles at once.
coarse dust particles (TSP and PM10 ).
The results showed higher concentrations of PM10 and PM2.5 during
[6] NA NA NA NA the winter season. Mining operations contributed to larger fractions of NM
dust particles.
The results showed that dust concentration around working mining
[52] NA NA NA NA NM
equipment is very high.
The results of the study were modelling predictions using the baseline
[9] NA NA NA NA NM
concentrations and models.
Although every measurement was below 3 mg·m−3 , concentrations The study was limited to
[53] NA NA NA NA
exceeded 50% and 75% of the total value at some monitoring stations. 24 dust samples.
Results showed that dust concentration decreased with increasing
Nephelometer capacity is not very
distance with all wind directions and all size categories (TSP, PM10 ,
[8] NA NA NA NA high when measuring all sizes of
PM2.5 and PM1 ). The decrease was most pronounced in the
particles at once.
upwind direction.
[32] NA NA NA NA Average dust concentrations ranged from 1.29 to 19.38 mg·m−3. NM
Results showed that dust concentrations in Facility B, when compared
[54] Yes Yes NM NM to Facility A, were higher. The highest levels of respirable dust for both NM
facilities were found at the feeder stations.
The results showed that hauling mined material and crushing activities
[55] NA NA NA NA NM
are associated with the greatest dust generation of PM2.5 .
Results show that there are considerable differences in particle size and
composition between locations. In the working fronts, there are
[56] NA NA NA NA chemical elements, such as Nb, Th, Cr, Sr, Li, As, Pb, Cu, Zr and Ni, NM
mostly attributed to mining machinery, tyre and brake-wear emissions,
and deposition of dust emitted from gangue working zones.
NM: not Mentioned; NA: not applicable.
Safety 2022, 8, 9 25 of 27
References
1. Gautam, S.; Patra, A.K.; Sahu, S.P.; Hitch, M. Particulate matter pollution in opencast coal mining areas: A threat to human health
and environment. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2016, 32, 75–92. [CrossRef]
2. Karanasiou, A.; Moreno, N.; Moreno, T.; Viana, M.; de Leeuw, F.; Querol, X. Health effects from Sahara dust episodes in Europe:
Literature review and research gaps. Environ. Int. 2012, 47, 107–114. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
3. Prakash, B.B.; Kecojevic, V.; Lashgari, A. Analysis of dust emission at coal train loading facility. Int. J. Min. Reclam. Environ. 2018,
32, 56–74. [CrossRef]
4. Sairanen, M.; Rinne, M.; Selonen, O. A review of dust emission dispersions in rock aggregate and natural stone quarries. Int. J.
Min. Reclam. Environ. 2018, 32, 196–220. [CrossRef]
5. Katra, I. Comparison of diverse dust control products in wind-induced dust emission from unpaved roads. Appl. Sci. 2019,
9, 5204. [CrossRef]
6. Tripathy, D.P.; Dash, T.R. Assessment of particulate and trace element pollution in airborne dust around a highly mechanized
opencast coal mine in talcher, odisha. J. Min. Sci. 2018, 54, 697–708. [CrossRef]
7. Poinen-Rughooputh, S.; Rughooputh, M.S.; Guo, Y.; Rong, Y.; Chen, W. Occupational exposure to silica dust and risk of lung
cancer: An updated meta-analysis of epidemiological studies. BMC Public Health 2016, 16, 1137. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
8. Sairanen, M.; Rinne, M. Dust emission from crushing of hard rock aggregates. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2019, 10, 656–664. [CrossRef]
9. Chaulya, S.K.; Trivedi, R.; Kumar, A.; Tiwary, R.K.; Singh, R.S.; Pandey, P.K.; Kumar, R. Air quality modelling for prediction of
dust concentrations in iron ore mines of Saranda region, Jharkhand, India. Atmos. Pollut. Res. 2019, 10, 675–688. [CrossRef]
10. Abdollahisharif, J.; Bakhtavar, E.; Nourizadeh, H. Monitoring and assessment of pollutants resulting from bench-blasting
operations. J. Min. Environ. 2016, 7, 109–118. [CrossRef]
11. Arrandale, V.H.; Kalenge, S.; Demers, P.A. Silica exposure in a mining exploration operation. Arch. Environ. Occup. Health 2018,
73, 351–354. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
12. Bang, K.M.; Mazurek, J.M.; Wood, J.M.; White, G.E.; Hendricks, S.A.; Weston, A. Silicosis Mortality Trends and New Exposures to
Respirable Crystalline Silica—United States, 2001–2010. MWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2015, 64, 117–120.
13. Andraos, C.; Utembe, W.; Gulumian, M. Exceedance of environmental exposure limits to crystalline silica in communities
surrounding gold mine tailings storage facilities in South Africa. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 619–620, 504–516. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
14. Gonzalez-Garcia, M.; Caballero, A.; Jaramillo, C.; Torres-Duque, C.A. Chronic bronchitis: High prevalence in never smokers and
underdiagnosis—A population-based study in Colombia. Chron. Respir. Dis. 2018, 16, 1479972318769771. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
15. Markovič Baluchová, B.; Bačík, P.; Mamová, A. The health impact of mineral dust air pollution on the global and local scale (on
the example from Slovakia). Neuroendocrinol. Lett. 2019, 40, 24–28.
16. Bluvshtein, N.; Mahrer, Y.; Sandler, A.; Rytwo, G. Evaluating the impact of a limestone quarry on suspended and accumulated
dust. Atmos. Environ. 2011, 45, 1732–1739. [CrossRef]
17. Utembe, W.; Faustman, E.M.; Matatiele, P.; Gulumian, M. Hazards identified and the need for health risk assessment in the South
African mining industry. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2015, 34, 1212–1221. [CrossRef]
18. Yorio, P.L.; Laney, A.S.; Halldin, C.N.; Blackley, D.J.; Moore, S.M.; Wizner, K.; Radonovich, L.J.; Greenawald, L.A. Interstitial lung
diseases in the U.S. mining industry: Using MSHA data to examine trends and the prevention effects of compliance with health
regulations, 1996–2015. Risk Anal. 2018, 38, 1962–1971. [CrossRef]
19. Khaniabadi, Y.O.; Polosa, R.; Chuturkova, R.Z.; Daryanoosh, M.; Goudarzi, G.; Borgini, A.; Tittarelli, A.; Basiri, H.; Armin, H.;
Nourmoradi, H.; et al. Human health risk assessment due to ambient PM10 and SO2 by an air quality modeling technique.
Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2017, 111, 346–354. [CrossRef]
20. Kang, M.-Y.; Jung, J.; Koo, J.-W.; Kim, I.; Kim, H.-R.; Myong, J.-P. Increased risk of gastric cancer in workers with occupational
dust exposure. Korean J. Intern. Med. 2021, 36, S18–S26. [CrossRef]
21. Kim, K.-H.; Kabir, E.; Kabir, S. A review on the human health impact of airborne particulate matter. Sci. Direct 2015, 74, 136–143.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
22. Li, L.; Jiang, M.; Li, X.; Zhou, B. Association between coalmine dust and mortality risk of lung cancer: A meta-analysis. BioMed
Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 6624799. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
23. Kahraman, M.M.; Erkayaoglu, M. A data-driven approach to control fugitive dust in mine operations. Min. Metall. Explor. 2021,
38, 549–558. [CrossRef]
24. Wippich, C.; Rissler, J.; Koppisch, D.; Breuer, D. Estimating respirable dust exposure from inhalable dust exposure. Ann.
Work Expo. Health 2020, 64, 430–444. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
25. Sahu, S.P.; Yadav, M.; Rani, N.; Das, A.J. Assessment of occupational health exposure to particulate matter around opencast coal
mines, India: A case study. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 1–11. [CrossRef]
26. Huang, Y.; Bao, M.; Xiao, J.; Qiu, Z.; Wu, K. Effects of PM2.5 on cardio-pulmonary function injury in open manganese mine
workers. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 2017. [CrossRef]
27. Guo, Q.; Ren, W.; Shi, J. Foam for coal dust suppression during underground coal mine tunneling. Tunn. Undergr. Space Technol.
2019, 89, 170–178. [CrossRef]
28. Chang, C.T. Assessment of Influential Range and Characteristics of Fugitive Dust in Limestone Extraction Processes. J. Air Waste
Manag. Assoc. 2004, 54, 141–148. [CrossRef]
Safety 2022, 8, 9 26 of 27
29. Bao, J.; Johansson, J.; Zhang, J. An occupational disease assessment of the mining industry’s occupational health and safety
management system based on FMEA and an Improved AHP Model. Sustainability 2017, 9, 94. [CrossRef]
30. Pandey, J.K.; Agarwal, D.; Gorain, S.; Dubey, R.K.; Vishwakarma, M.K.; Mishra, K.K.; Pal, A.K. Characterisation of respirable dust
exposure of different category of workers in Jharia Coalfields. Arab. J. Geosci. 2017, 10, 183. [CrossRef]
31. Reed, W.R.; Organiscak, J.A. The evaluation of dust exposure to truck drivers following the lead Haul truck. In Proceedings of
the 2005 SME Annual Meeting, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 28 February–2 March 2005; pp. 71–79.
32. Tong, R.; Cheng, M.; Yang, X.; Yang, Y.; Shi, M. Exposure levels and health damage assessment of dust in a coal mine of Shanxi
Province, China. Process Saf. Environ. Prot. 2019, 128, 184–192. [CrossRef]
33. Duarte, J.; Vaz, M.; Costa, J.T.; Baptista, J.S. Occupational exposure to dust in road construction, earthworks and open-pit
mining—A scoping review protocol. Int. J. Occup. Environ. Saf. 2019, 3, 14–19. [CrossRef]
34. Shamseer, L.; Moher, D.; Clarke, M.; Ghersi, D.; Liberati, A.; Petticrew, M.; Shekelle, P.; Stewart, L.A.; Altman, D.G.; Booth, A.; et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (prisma-p) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ
2015, 349, 1–25. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
35. Tricco, A.C.; Lillie, E.; Zarin, W.; O’Brien, K.K.; Colquhoun, H.; Levac, D.; Moher, D.; Peters, M.D.J.; Horsley, T.; Weeks, L.; et al.
PRISMA extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and explanation. Ann. Intern. Med. 2018, 169, 467–473.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
36. Li, D.; Li, Z.; Zhang, Z. The study on the earthworks of green construction based on value engineering. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth
Environ. Sci. 2019, 218, 012024. [CrossRef]
37. Wohlin, C. Claes Guidelines for snowballing in systematic literature studies and a replication in software engineering. In Pro-
ceedings of the 18th International Conference on Evaluation and Assessment in Software Engineering—EASE’14, London, UK,
13–14 May 2014; ACM Press: New York, NY, USA, 2014; pp. 1–10.
38. Higgins, J.; Altman, D.; Gøtzsche, P.; Jüni, P.; Moher, D.; Oxman, A.; Savović, J.; Schulz, K.; Weeks, L.; Sterne, J.A.C.C. The cochrane
collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011, 343, d5928. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
39. Moher, D.; Liberati, A.; Tetzlaff, J.; Altman, D.; Altman, D.; Antes, G.; Atkins, D.; Barbour, V.; Barrowman, N.; Berlin, J.; et al.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009, 6, e1000097.
[CrossRef]
40. Van Eck, N.J.; Waltman, L. Software survey: VOSviewer, a computer program for bibliometric mapping. Scientometrics 2010,
84, 523–538. [CrossRef]
41. Onder, M.; Yigit, E. Assessment of respirable dust exposures in an opencast coal mine. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2009, 152, 393–401.
[CrossRef]
42. Gholami, A.; Fani, M.J.; Sadeghi, N. Occupational exposure determination to silica dust in an iron-stone ore and comparison with
standard. Int. J. Collab. Res. Intern. Med. Public Health 2012, 4, 1141–1149.
43. Faber, P.; Drewnick, F.; Borrmann, S. Aerosol particle and trace gas emissions from earthworks, road construction, and asphalt
paving in Germany: Emission factors and influence on local air quality. Atmos. Environ. 2015, 122, 662–671. [CrossRef]
44. Sastry, V.R.R.; Chandar, K.R.; Nagesha, K.V.V.; Muralidhar, E.; Mohiuddin, M.S. Prediction and analysis of dust dispersion from
drilling operation in opencast coal mines. Procedia Earth Planet. Sci. 2015, 11, 303–311. [CrossRef]
45. Gautam, S.; Kumar, P.; Patra, A.K. Occupational exposure to particulate matter in three Indian opencast mines. Air Qual. Atmos.
Health 2016, 9, 143–158. [CrossRef]
46. Amran, S.; Latif, M.T.; Khan, M.F.; Goh, E.; Leman, A.M.; Jaafar, S.A. Underestimation of respirable crystalline silica (RCS)
compliance status among the granite crusher operators in Malaysian quarries. Air Qual. Atmos. Health 2017, 10, 371–379.
[CrossRef]
47. Hwang, J.; Ramachandran, G.; Raynor, P.C.; Alexander, B.H.; Mandel, J.H. A comprehensive assessment of exposures to respirable
dust and silica in the taconite mining industry. J. Occup. Environ. Hyg. 2017, 14, 377–388. [CrossRef]
48. Rabeiy, R.E.S.; ElTahlawi, M.R.; Boghdady, G.Y. Occupational health hazards in the Sukari Gold Mine, Egypt. J. Afr. Earth Sci.
2018, 146, 209–216. [CrossRef]
49. Richardson, C.; Rutherford, S.; Agranovski, I. Characterization of particulate emissions from Australian open-cut coal mines:
Toward improved emission estimates. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2018, 68, 598–607. [CrossRef]
50. Rusibamayila, M.; Meshi, E.; Mamuya, S. Respiratory impairment and personal respirable dust exposure among the underground
and open cast gold miners in Tanzania. Ann. Glob. Health 2018, 84, 419–428. [CrossRef]
51. Sairanen, M.; Selonen, O. Dust formed during drilling in natural stone quarries. Bull. Eng. Geol. Environ. 2018, 77, 1249–1262.
[CrossRef]
52. Wanjun, T.; Qingxiang, C. Dust distribution in open-pit mines based on monitoring data and fluent simulation. Environ. Monit.
Assess. 2018, 190, 632. [CrossRef]
53. Mankar, P.; Mandal, B.B.; Chatterjee, D. Monitoring and assessment of airborne respirable limestone dust and free silica content
in an Indian mine. J. Health Pollut. 2019, 9, 190904. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
54. Sepadi, M.M.; Chadyiwa, M.; Nkosi, V. Platinum mine workers exposure to dust particles emitted at mine waste rock crusher
plants in limpopo, South Africa. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 655. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
55. Ambastha, S.K.; Haritash, A.K. Emission of respirable dust from stone quarrying, potential health effects, and its management.
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 29, 6670–6677. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Safety 2022, 8, 9 27 of 27
56. Trechera, P.; Moreno, T.; Córdoba, P.; Moreno, N.; Zhuang, X.; Li, B.; Li, J.; Shangguan, Y.; Dominguez, A.O.; Kelly, F.; et al.
Comprehensive evaluation of potential coal mine dust emissions in an open-pit coal mine in Northwest China. Int. J. Coal Geol.
2021, 235, 103677. [CrossRef]
57. Zilaout, H.; Vlaanderen, J.; Houba, R.; Kromhout, H. 15 years of monitoring occupational exposure to respirable dust and quartz
within the European industrial minerals sector. Int. J. Hyg. Environ. Health 2017, 220, 810–819. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
58. Dahmann, D.; Taeger, D.; Kappler, M.; Büchte, S.; Morfeld, P.; Brüning, T.; Pesch, B. Assessment of exposure in epidemiological
studies: The example of silica dust. J. Expo. Sci. Environ. Epidemiol. 2008, 18, 452–461. [CrossRef]
59. Zilaout, H.; Houba, R.; Kromhout, H. Temporal trends in respirable dust and respirable quartz concentrations within the European
industrial minerals sector over a 15-year period (2002–2016). Occup. Environ. Med. 2020, 77, 268–275. [CrossRef]
60. Bell, J.L.; Mazurek, J.M. Trends in pneumoconiosis deaths—United States, 1999–2018. MMWR. Morb. Mortal. Wkly. Rep. 2020,
69, 693–698. [CrossRef]

Occupational Exposure To Mineral Dust in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Occupational Exposure To Mineral Dust in

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Occupational Exposure To Mineral Dust in

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

safety

Abstract: Anthropogenic activity is related to several environmental imbalances, including dust.

Academic Editor: Tom Brijs 1. Introduction

Received: 10 November 2021

Safety 2022, 8, 9. https://doi.org/10.3390/safety8010009 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/safety

Figure 1. Summary of the research, adapted from Moher et al. [39].

Figure 2. Keywords relations between studies.

4.1. Job-Related Variables

Table 2. Activity per study.

Table 3. Dust concentration according to performed activity.

8 h conc. Range Range

Only one study reported dust-concentration measurements for an eight-hour period,

4.1.2. Job Category

4.2. Engineering Variables

Table 4. Main results of Sepadi et al. [54] concerning equipment.

4.2.2. Transport System

Table 5. Relation between transport system and dust concentration [28].

4.3. Technical Variables

4.4. Physical Variables

4.5. Other Variables

Table 6. Bias analysis of each study.

4.7. Study Limitations

(1) A comprehensive description of the occupational setting;

Paper-Related Data General Information People-Related Data

Paper-Related Data General Information People-Related Data

Table 2. Occupational exposure characterisation per study.

Study Duration of the

Study Duration of the

Study Duration of the

Study Duration of the

Study Duration of the

Table 3. Prevalence and main findings per study.

Prevalence Main Findings

Prevalence Main Findings

Prevalence Main Findings

You might also like