Characterizing infiltration of ambient PM₂.₅ into urban microenvironments using portable monitors

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Zhiyuan Li
Keyword(s):  
Portable Monitors

scholarly journals Practical Field Calibration of Portable Monitors for Mobile Measurements of Multiple Air Pollutants

Atmosphere ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (12) ◽  
pp. 231 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chun Lin ◽  
Nicola Masey ◽  
Hao Wu ◽  
Mark Jackson ◽  
David Carruthers ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Air Pollutants ◽  
Field Calibration ◽  
Portable Monitors ◽  
Mobile Measurements ◽  
Practical Field

scholarly journals Assessment of the accuracy of portable monitors for halitosis evaluation in subjects without malodor complaint. Are they reliable for clinical practice?

2017 ◽  
Vol 25 (5) ◽  
pp. 559-565 ◽  
Author(s):  
Denise Pinheiro Falcão ◽  
Priscila Carvalho Miranda ◽  
Tayana Filgueira Galdino Almeida ◽  
Monique Gomes da Silva Scalco ◽  
Felipe Fregni ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Portable Monitors

scholarly journals Investigation of Obstructive Sleep Apnea Using Portable Monitors and Health Check Data in Japanese Drivers

2018 ◽  
Vol 25 (11) ◽  
pp. 1118-1127 ◽  
Author(s):  
Masako Ueyama ◽  
Hiroyuki Kokuto ◽  
Hitoshi Sugihara ◽  
Shinichi Oikawa ◽  
Fumio Suzuki ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Obstructive Sleep Apnea ◽  
Sleep Apnea ◽  
Health Check ◽  
Obstructive Sleep ◽  
Portable Monitors

scholarly journals Accuracy of Type III Portable Monitors for Diagnosing Obstructive Sleep Apnea

2018 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Keiko Ito ◽  
Tokunori Ikeda
Keyword(s):  
Obstructive Sleep Apnea ◽  
Sleep Apnea ◽  
Clinical State ◽  
Apnea Hypopnea Index ◽  
Portable Monitor ◽  
Type Iii ◽  
Type Iv ◽  
Obstructive Sleep ◽  
Sleep Breathing Disorder ◽  
Portable Monitors

Objectives: We evaluated whether the results from portable monitor (PM) devices for the diagnosis of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), classified into type III and type IV devices by the American Academy of Sleep Medicine, correlated with the results from polysomnography (PSG) testing. Methods: Sixty-four patients with a sleep-breathing disorder used type III or type IV PM devices at home and were subsequently admitted for testing using PSG. The apnea-hypopnea index (AHI) from each machine was measured, and the AHI component, apnea index (AI), and hypopnea index (HI) were also analyzed. Results: There was a stronger correlation between the AHI values from PSG testing and those from the type III PM devices (r = 0.92, p < 0.001) than for the data from type IV devices (r = 0.69, p < 0.001). However, the correlation of HI values (type III: r = 0.43, p = 0.024; type IV: r = 0.14, p = 0.41) was poorer than that of the AI values (type III: r = 0.95, p < 0.001; type IV: r = 0.68, p < 0.001). Moreover, the type III PM devices tended to evaluate a patient's condition as less severe than did PSG testing when the AHI value was over 30. Conclusions: Although type III PM devices outperformed type IV devices as substitutes for PSG, the clinical state must be evaluated for patients suspected of having obstructive sleep apnea.

scholarly journals Monitor Height Ergonomics: A Comparison of Operating Room Video Display Terminals

2015 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. ar.2015.6.0119 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gregory I. Kelts ◽  
Kevin C. McMains ◽  
Phillip G. Chen ◽  
Erik K. Weitzel
Keyword(s):  
Operating Room ◽  
Correction Factor ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Vertical Displacement ◽  
Video Display ◽  
Video Display Terminal ◽  
Video Display Terminals ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Portable Monitors ◽  
Post Hoc

A surgeon's eyes should be positioned 1 meter (m) distant and no more than 15° below the top of an operating monitor (0.27 m). We sought to determine which operating room video display terminal can best accommodate ergonomically optimized gaze during surgery. Floor to eye height was measured for surgeons in seated, perched, and standing positions. These ranges were then compared to vertical displacement ranges for monitors measured from floor to top of the screen. Eye height was measured for standing (1.56 −1.80 m), perched (1.40 −1.65 m), and seated (1.10 −1.32 m) positions. The minimum distance (min) between the floor and the top of the monitor and the vertical mobility range (VR) of the monitor were measured throughout a tertiary medical center including towers with boom arms (TcB) (min: 1.58 m, VR: 0.37 m), towers without booms (TsB) (min: 1.82 m, VR: 0.025 m), ceiling mounted booms (CMB) (min: 1.34 m:, VR: 1.04 m), and portable monitors (PM) (min: 1.73 m, VR: 0.04 m). The tangent of 15° declination was used to calculate a correction factor to determine the minimum optimal ergonomic display height. The correction factor was subtracted from the eye height at each position to determine the lowest target height and the highest target floor to eye distance for each position. Analysis of variance with least significant difference post hoc testing identified all minimum distances and vertical ranges to be statistically different (p < 0.001). Monitor vertical displacement varied between styles of carts. CMB video display terminal systems can accommodate standing, perched and the tallest seated surgeons. TcB, TsB and PM systems cannot adequately accommodate all standing, perched or seated surgeons.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document