Occupational Exposure to Silica Dust and Silicosis Risk in Chinese Noncoal Mines: Qualitative and Quantitative Risk Assessment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite increasing awareness, silica dust-induced silicosis still contributes to the huge disease burden in China. Worryingly, recent silica dust exposure levels and silicosis risk in Chinese noncoal mines remain unclear. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine recent silica dust exposure levels and assess the risk of silicosis in Chinese noncoal mines. METHODS: Between May and December 2020, we conducted a retrospective cohort study on 3 noncoal mines and 1 public hospital to establish, using multivariable Cox regression analyses, prediction formulas of the silicosis cumulative hazard ratio (H) and incidence (I) and a cross-sectional study on 155 noncoal mines in 10 Chinese provinces to determine the prevalence of silica dust exposure (PDE), free silica content, and total dust and respirable dust concentrations. The qualitative risk of silicosis was assessed using the International Mining and Metals Commission's risk-rating table and the occupational hazard risk index; the quantitative risk was assessed using prediction formulas. RESULTS: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis revealed significant differences in the silicosis probability between silica dust-exposed male and female miners (log-rank test χ21=7.52, P=.01). A total of 126 noncoal mines, with 29,835 miners and 4623 dust samples, were included; 13,037 (43.7%) miners were exposed to silica dust, of which 12,952 (99.3%) were male. The median PDE, free silica content, total dust concentration, and respirable dust concentration were 61.6%, 27.6%, 1.30 mg/m3, and 0.58 mg/m3, respectively, indicating that miners in nonmetal, nonferrous metal, small, and open-pit mines suffer high-level exposure to silica dust. Comprehensive qualitative risk assessment showed noncoal miners had a medium risk of silicosis, and the risks caused by total silica dust and respirable silica dust exposure were high and medium, respectively. When predicting H and I over the next 10, 20, and 30 years, we assumed that the miner gender was male. Under exposure to current total silica dust concentrations, median I10, I20, and I30 would be 6.8%, 25.1%, and 49.9%, respectively. Under exposure to current respirable silica dust concentrations, median I10, I20, and I30 would be 6.8%, 27.7%, and 57.4%, respectively. These findings showed that miners in nonmetal, nonferrous metal, small, and open-pit mines have a higher I and higher qualitative silicosis risk. CONCLUSIONS: Chinese noncoal miners, especially those in nonmetal, nonferrous metal, small, and open-pit mines, still suffer high-level exposure to silica dust and a medium-level risk of silicosis. Data of both total silica dust and respirable silica dust are vital for occupational health risk assessment in order to devise effective control measures to reduce noncoal mine silica dust levels, improve miners' working environment, and reduce the risk of silicosis.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".