English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Four methods for evaluating the dustiness of powders have been compared. The relatively new UNC Dustiness Tester first described by Boundy et al. (2006) in the Annals of Occupational Hygiene, which was developed specifically for the measurement of hazardous and/or highly potent substances, a single-drop device, a rotating-drum method, and a continuous drop-down apparatus. The four methods show four different ratings of dustiness for nine reference materials. This article describes the differences, explores reasons for the deviations, identifies a need for distinct dustiness test methods, and highlights the significance for occupational health and safety.

annals of occupational hygiene

Comparison of Established Systems for Measuring the Dustiness of Powders with the UNC Dustiness Tester Developed Especially for Pharmaceutical Substances