Abstract
Cumulative inhalation of respirable coal mine dust (RCMD) can lead to severe lung diseases, including coal worker’s pneumoconiosis (CWP), silicosis, mixed dust pneumoconiosis, dust-related diffuse fibrosis (DDF), and progressive massive fibrosis (PMF). Statistics from the number of reported cases showed a significant decrease in the progression of respiratory diseases in the 1990s. However, an unexpected increase in the number of CWP cases was reported in the late 1990s. To date, there has been no comprehensive systematic review to assess all contributing factors to the resurgence of CWP cases. This study aims to investigate the effects of various mining parameters on the prevalence of CWP in coal mines. A systematic review using the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) method was conducted to investigate the health effects of RCMD exposure and identify the factors that may contribute to the recent resurgence of CWP cases. The systematic review yielded a total of 401 papers, which were added to the database. The total number of 148 and 208 papers were excluded from the database in the process of screening and eligibility, respectively. Then, 18 papers were considered for data selection and full-text assessment. The review revealed that factors including geographic location, mine size, mining operation type, coal-seam thickness, coal rank, changes in mining practices, technology advancement, and engineering dust control practices are contributing to the recent resurgence of CWP among coal workers. However, the evidence for root causes is limited owing to the methodological constraints of the studies; therefore, further detailed studies are needed.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Respirable coal mine dust (RCMD) is a mixture of more than 50 elements and their oxides. It is estimated that 40%–95% of respirable dust in the underground coal mine is pure coal, and the rest contains particles originated from cutting roof and floor rock, diesel exhaust from equipment, and rock dusting (Walton et al. 1977; NIOSH 1995). Cumulative inhalation of RCMD can lead to severe lung diseases, including coal worker’s pneumoconiosis (CWP), silicosis, mixed dust pneumoconiosis, dust-related diffuse fibrosis (DDF), and progressive massive fibrosis (PMF) (Cullinan et al. 2017; Hall et al. 2019). In the United States, an unexpected and severe increase in coal miners’ lung diseases in the late 1990s prompted researchers to investigate the causes of the disease resurgence.
Several potential reasons have been hypothesized for the increased rate of CWP among U.S. coal miners, including geological factors (e.g., Laney et al. 2010; Blackley et al. 2014), thin-seam mining (e.g., Antao et al. 2006; Sarver et al. 2019), quartz exposure (e.g., Sarver et al. 2020), coal rank (e.g., Laney and Attfield 2010; Pollock et al. 2010), and mine size (e.g., Blackley et al. 2014; Gamble et al. 2011). However, there has been no comprehensive systematic review investigating the role of all potential contributing factors.
Systematic review is a type of review that uses explicit and systematic methods to collect reliable data from all available databases to reduce random and systematic errors of bias; thus, providing reliable findings to draw conclusions, and make decisions (Torgerson 2003). Systematic review is a technically robust methodology for summarizing and testing the consistency of the primary studies in a given topic. In conducting a systematic review, all available evidence, whether they support or refute a hypothesis, are included. Therefore, the rejection or confirmation of a hypothesis is with fewer biases compared to other types of review (Shekarian and Mellat-Parast 2020).
A few researchers investigated some aspects of occupational exposure to RCMD. Beer et al. (2017) conducted a systematic review of the coal dust exposure to investigate whether the prevalence of occupational lung diseases is pure coal or coal mixed with silica minerals. In their study, a total of 2945 papers were collected, and nine papers were selected for evaluation of the topic by excluding the nonrelated articles. The study found that the evidence is limited for causal links between exposure to pure coal powder and lung diseases and suggested conducting further analysis of the data related to miners exposed to either pure coal or coal with very low minerals content. Jenkins et al. (2013) conducted a systematic review based on 34 selected articles to examine the links between coal dust exposure and cancer incidence and mortality. The study concluded that the available data are too limited to draw any final conclusions concerning a population cancer risk from coal mining.
Currently, there is no comprehensive systematic review on RCMD health effects in the U.S. This study aims to conduct a systematic review of RCMD exposure and investigate the impacts of mining parameters, including mine size, coal rank, geographical location, and coal seam thickness on the prevalence of CWP. The systematic review was performed based on the defined review protocol and then irrelevant papers were excluded. A total number of 401 publications were included in conducting this systematic review. The preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) method was used and 18 articles were selected for data evaluation. A detailed discussion of the current state of knowledge on the potential role of mining parameters in the prevalence of CWP was provided. Furthermore, characterization of the selected studies, and the knowledge gaps were identified. The systematic review yields information on the role of various mining factors contributing to the coal mine disease. The information will be used to develop hypotheses during the statistical analysis of RCMD occupational health outcomes.
2 Materials and methods
A systematic review was conducted to investigate the contributing factors in recent resurgence of CWP among US coal miners. The steps for conducting a systematic review are shown in Fig. 1, and were followed in this study. Determination of an appropriate research question in early stages of a systematic review reduces the time and cost in identifying and studying relevant publications (Torgerson 2003). In this study, the following research questions were identified:
-
(1)
What are the potential contributing factors in the resurgence of CWP among the US coal miners at the end of the 1990s?
-
(2)
What is the current state of knowledge in RCMD exposure health risk?
-
(3)
What are the knowledge gaps that future research should address?
The inclusion and exclusion criteria are rigorously and transparently reported in a high-quality systematic analysis. Eligible criteria are defined to reduce the reviewer’s selection and inclusion bias in conducting the review. The protocol defines a set of pre-determined written conditions for inclusion and exclusion of studies. For example, the inclusion and exclusion may include a specific type of review, publication period and language, experiments carried on using a real experimental design, or other types of criteria related to the research questions. In this research, the eligibility criteria were defined in Table 1.
For this research, the systematic search for studies was initiated from various electronic databases such as PubMed, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The keywords used for collecting research articles included coal, respirable coal mine dust, coal dust characteristics, exposure limits and regulations, respiratory diseases, occupational health regulation, RCMD exposure, miners lung, black lung disease, lung deposition, CWP, silicosis, anthracosis, anthracosilicosis, interstitial lung disease (ILD), lung deposition, respiratory system, systematic review, occupational exposure, mine size, seam height, underground coal mining, accident analysis, occupational lung diseases.
The database was set by PRISMA method. Briefly, in this method, duplicate articles are removed, and at least two independent reviewers screened the search results. Screening is conducted based on titles and abstracts (first screening) and then by complete articles (second screening) to ensure that the articles meet the eligibility criteria. Following the identification of relevant publications, data must be retrieved using a standard data extraction form by at least two independent researchers (double data extraction). The studies are also evaluated in order to establish their quality (quality appraisal). Those publications that met the criteria and have the key features of the application (e.g., explicit rigorous protocol, summarized table, statistical analysis) are considered as high-quality articles. The data from those publications are then extracted and summarized in a synthesis. If the data is not in a format that allows a statistical summary, this can be done as a ‘qualitative’ overview. Statistical analysis can be performed if the data is numerical and homogeneous enough. Finally, the synthesis data will be analyzed in a report that will be subjected to peer review before publishing (Torgerson 2003).
In this research, a total of 401 articles were collected from the computer-based literature search. Upon excluding duplicate publications, the database included 372 articles. The titles were independently screened by two researchers against the inclusion criterion (Table 1). Furthermore, the references in each paper were examined to identify additional publications, which did not appear in the original literature search (snowballing). In the next step, the titles and abstracts were screened and 148 papers were excluded from the database. Afterward, full-text screening was performed on the remaining 224 publications. A total number of 204 papers were eliminated from the database by reviewing the outlines, objectives, conclusions, and health outcomes related to RCMD. Finally, using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 18 articles (16 from the aforementioned stages and 2 from snowball search) were considered for the systematic review. The inclusion process is presented as a flowchart in Fig. 2. The information extracted from selected papers, including authors, data sources, study period, number of data, geographic location, type of analysis, research category, results, conclusions, and recommendations, were provided in Table 2.
In this research, a comprehensive database was created, and the publications were categorized according to the project outline and the publication year (Fig. 3a and b). The categories include RCMD characteristics, health-diseases, dust control, respiratory deposition, mining methods, monitoring techniques, RCMD sources, standard and regulations, and systematic review. As shown in Fig. 3b, the majority of the selected articles were related to lung deposition (24%), health–diseases (23%), regulation-exposure (19%), and a very few studies were systematic review articles (3%).
3 Results and discussion
The summary of the papers selected for the systematic review data selection is listed in Table 2. The systematic review conducted in this research included a total of 401 publications. The majority of the selected articles were related to lung deposition, health-disease, and regulation-exposure. Irrelevant publications were excluded from the database based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria (Table 1). Upon screening, a total number of 18 papers were selected to extract reliable quantitative and qualitative information for the systematic review. Individual factors, changes in mining practices, technology advancement, thin seam mining, mine size, coal rank, geographic location, mining method, rock dusting, and new cutting technology were among the parameters that were considered to potentially contribute to the resurgence of CWP.
In the majority of the studies, exposure measurements were taken by gravimetric dust sampling or personal sampling instrument, and expressed as average mean exposure (mg/m3). In two comprehensive studies for the U.S. underground and surface coal mines, 5.5% and 1.5% of RCMD samples in underground and surface mines, respectively, exceeded the permissible exposure limit (PEL) of 2.0 mg/m3 (Doney et al. 2019a, b). In those studies, 15.3% of surface silica samples and 2.0% of underground silica samples exceeded the PEL. In comparison to the rest of the United States, Central Appalachia exhibited statistically greater RCMD, respirable quartz, and precent quartz in the samples. Over 32% of quartz samples exceeded the PEL in the drilling occupations. The arithmetic mean of respirable quartz for drilling occupations was 0.15 mg/m3, approximately three times higher than the overall average (0.04 mg/m3). Duration of RCMD exposure was in the range of 5–60 years of employment. In several studies, the duration of the dust exposure was not stated (Morgan et al. 1973; Laney et al. 2010; Vallyathan et al. 2011; Blackley et al. 2014; Hall et al. 2019, 2020; Sarver et al. 2020). Studies population was in the range of 4491 to 90,973 miners. Most studies’ research populations were entirely male. As a result, the assessment contains no information concerning the specific risks of these exposures for females. There is only one study that includes females in the risk associated with coal mining (Jenkins et al. 2013). Due to the small sample size, those female miners were excluded from the study (Graber et al. 2017). There was no study focusing on the effect of pure respirable coal or silica on health (Beer et al. 2017). The focus of many studies was on Appalachian underground coal mines in Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Virginia, and West Virginia. Characterization of RCMD samples from the various geographic locations in the U.S. was performed in two different studies (Morgan et al. 1973; Sarver et al. 2020). Due to the geographical clustering of coal mines in the U.S., regional variations in dust characteristics exist, which is associated with various lung diseases. In Central Appalachia, for instance, mines may have more rock strata sourced dust than in other mines in the United States (Sarver et al. 2020). A previous study showed that a considerable portion of the coal mine dust collected in different mine sites is in the size of submicron (Sarver et al. 2020).
The characteristics of selected publications in the systematic review are as below:
-
(1)
There are consistent data related to the coal mines employee/production, RCMD disease, and exposure in the U.S. provided by MSHA, NIOSH, EIA, etc.
-
(2)
All of the studies in the U.S. agreed more investigations are needed to find the contributing factors related to the recent resurgence of lung diseases.
-
(3)
There has been significant progress in recent characterization studies, including characterization of submicron RCMD particles.
-
(4)
Most studies focused on the prevalence of CWP cases in the Appalachia region (Kentucky, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Virginia) since most of the cases were observed in this region.
-
(5)
It has been confirmed that RCMD characterization is different between mines.
-
(6)
Recent studies have focused on the investigation of contributing mining factors in the prevalence of mine diseases (e.g., the effect of mine size in the prevalence of CWP among Appalachia coal mines).
-
(7)
More than 40% of articles in the database were related to RCMD health-disease, and exposure-regulation. Therefore, there has been a tremendous effort to address this issue and study the the efficacy of the current RCMD regulations and monitoring approaches.
-
(8)
The total number of publications related to RCMD published recently has been increased; therefore, the topic of RCMD is of concern for many researchers in the U.S.
A closer look at the previous studies reveals several deficiencies. First, the effects of all the contributing mining parameters (i.e., mining operation type, mine size, coal rank, coal seam thickness, geographic location, etc.) on the prevalence of CWP have not been investigated in a multivariable model (Shekarian et al. 2021a). Second, there has been no research to compare the prevalence of lung diseases in surface and underground mines. Third, the confidence levels and p-values of analysis in a few of the selected studies are missing, and it is not clear whether the identified relationships in those studies were statistically significant. Therefore, with the limited data available in previous studies, it is difficult to conclude to what extent those studied factors may have contributed to the recent resurgence of CWP. Fourth, the worker’s health history and any previous illnesses/disabilities have not been systematically collected. Fifth, a major flow in the previous studies was the assumption that miners were exposed to a constant level of dust exposure at the same job during the entire employment tenure (Vallyathan et al. 2011; Graber et al. 2014; Shekarian et al. 2021b). Finally, the primary focus of the selected publications was focused on underground coal mines in the hot spot areas (i.e., West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Kentucky), and the data from other regions and mining methods were excluded.
In addition to the aforementioned drawbacks in previous studies, information on key parameters and their relationships with the prevalence of CWP are missing. Information related to several factors such as mining technology changes, advancement in cutting machineries, and disease latency time is insufficient. There is also limited data on the lung deposition of submicron RCMD particles since most of the data collected in previous studies were in supramicron range of 3–10 microns (NAS 2018; Sarver et al. 2019). There is also a gap in knowledge to investigate which and how the compositions of RCMD may cause high rates of CWP and silicosis among coal miners.
There have been tremendous efforts to identify the contributing factors in developing lung diseases among coal miners. The analysis of possible explanations for the recent increase in CWP seems very complicated. Changes in mining practices, technology advancement, thin coal seam mining, rock dusting, the efficacy of water spay and mitigation techniques, engineering dust control, hours of working, and new cutting machinery may each contribute to the occurrence of new CWP cases in the US (See Fig. 4) (Volkwein et al. 2006; Colinet et al. 2010; Brown et al. 2013; Scaggs 2016; NAS 2018; Thakur 2019; Shekarian et al. 2021a). Further investigations are required to identify the root causes of the lung diseases resurgence and the contributing factors (Brown et al. 2013; NAS 2018; Johann-Essex et al. 2017; Sarver et al. 2019).
4 Conclusions
In the United States, the manifestation of black lung disease was in the 1960s when 30% of workers who had more than 25 years of tenure in underground coal mines reported developing CWP disease. There has been a significant effort since 1969 to address this issue by reducing the PEL of respirable coal and silica dust. This study aimed to investigate various contributing factors in the recent resurgence of CWP among coal miners in U.S coal mines by conducting a systematic review. Hence, available statistics and data on coal mine dust lung disease were collected from the literature to identify the critical medical, engineering, and mining factors contributing to the resurgence of CWP among coal miners in the United States. Of the 401 publications in the database, 148 studies were excluded in the title and abstract screening, 208 studies in the full-text assessment. Finally, a total number of 18 papers were selected by snowball research and full-text assessment of publications for the data extraction. The systematic review results showed that there are various contributing factors, including mine type, geographic location, technological development, level of automation, thin coal seam mining, application of rock dusting, coal rank, and changes in mining practices that can contribute to the increase of lung diseases. However, there has been no comprehensive systematic review to determine all the contributing factors associated with the recent resurgence of lung disease among U.S. coal miners. Furthermore, there are various limitations to those studies. For instance, the gender, race, mean, and median of miners’ age were not provided in many of those studies. Also, the vast majority of research studies focus on RCMD occupational exposure in underground mines. However, it is worth mentioning that respiratory lung disease is also a prevalent health issue among surface coal miners.
References
Antao VC, Petsonk EL, Sokolow LZ, Wolfe AL, Pinheiro GA, Attfield MD (2005) Rapidly progressive coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in the United States: Geographic clustering and other factors. Occup Environ Med 62(10):670–674. https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.2004.019679
Antao V, Petsonk EL, Attfield MD (2006) Advanced cases of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis—two counties, Virginia, 2006. Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 55(33):909–913
Beer C, Kolstad HA, Søndergaard K, Bendstrup E, Heederik D, Olsen KE, Omland Ø, Petsonk E, Sigsgaard T, Sherson DL, Schlünssen V (2017) A systematic review of occupational exposure to coal dust and the risk of interstitial lung diseases. Eur Clin Respiratory J 4–12:64711. https://doi.org/10.1080/20018525.2017.1264711
Blackley DJ, Halldin CN, Wang ML, Laney AS (2014) Small mine size is associated with lung function abnormality and pneumoconiosis among underground coal miners in Kentucky, Virginia and West Virginia. Occup Environ Med 71:690–694
Brown JS, Gordon T, Price O, Asgharian B (2013) Thoracic and respirable particle definitions for human health risk assessment. National Center for Environmental Assessment, US Environmental Protection Agency, MD B243-01, Research Triangle Park, Raleigh, NC 27711, USA. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1743-8977-10-12
Colinet JF, Rider JP, Listak JM, Organiscak JA, Wolfe AL (2010) Best practices for dust control in coal mining. Department of health and human services, Centers for Disease Control. and Prevention National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Office of Mine Safety and Health Research Pittsburgh, PA, WA. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/mining/works/coversheet861.html
Cullinan P, Muñoz X, Suojalehto H, Agius R, Jindal S, Sigsgaard T, Blomberg A, Charpin D, Annesi-Maesano I, Gulati M, Kim Y, Frank AL, Akgün M, Fishwick D, Hoz RE, Moitra S (2017) Occupational lung diseases: from old to novel exposures to effective preventive strategies. Lancet Respir Med 5(5):445–455. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2213-2600(16)30424-6
Doney BC, Blackley D, Hale JM, Halldin C, Kurth L, Syamlal G, Laney AS (2019a) Respirable coal mine dust in underground mines, United States, 1982–2017. Am J Ind Med 3:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.22974
Doney BC, Blackley D, Hale JM et al (2019b) Respirable coal mine dust at surface mines, United States, 1982–2017. Am J Ind Med 3:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23074
Gamble JF, Reger RB, Glenn RE (2011) Rapidly progressing coal workers pneumoconiosis as a confounding risk factor in assessing coal mine dust safe exposure levels. J Clin Toxicol S 1:003. https://doi.org/10.4172/2161-0495.S1-003
Go LH, Krefft SD, Cohen RA, Rose CS (2016) Lung disease and coal mining: what pulmonologists need to know. Curr Opin Pulm Med 22:170–178
Graber JM, Stayner LT, Cohen RA et al (2014) Respiratory disease mortality among US coal miners; results after 37years of follow-up. Occup Environ Med 71(1):30–39. https://doi.org/10.1136/oemed-2013-101597
Graber JM, Harris G, Almberg KS, Rose CS, Petsonk EL, Cohen RA (2017) Increasing severity of pneumoconiosis among younger former US coal miners working exclusively under modern dust-control regulations. J Occup Environ Med 59(6):e105–e111
Hall NB, Blackley DJ, Halldin CN, Laney AS (2019) Current review of pneumoconiosis among US coal miners. Curr Environ Health Rep 6(3):137–147. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-019-00237-5
Hall NB, Halldin CN, Blackley DJ, Laney AS (2020) Assessment of pneumoconiosis in surface coal miners after implementation of a national radiographic surveillance program, United States, 2014–2019. Am J Ind Med 6:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.23184
Jenkins WD, Christian WJ, Mueller G, Robbins KT (2013) Population Cancer Risks Associated with Coal Mining: a systematic review. PLoS ONE 8(8):e71312. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0071312
Jing Y, Xiukun W, Jianguang G, Gaiping L (2010) Surface characteristics and wetting mechanism of respirable coal dust. Min Sci Technol 20:0365–0371
Johann-Essex V, Keles C, Sarver E (2017) A computer-controlled SEM-EDX routine for characterizing respirable coal mine dust. Minerals. https://doi.org/10.3390/min7010015
Laney AS, Attfield MD (2010) Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis and progressive massive fibrosis are increasingly more prevalent among workers in small underground coal mines in the United States. Occup Environ Med 67(6):428–431
Laney AS, Weissman DN (2014) Respiratory diseases caused by coal mine dust. J Occup Environ Med 56(010):18–22. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000000260
Laney AS, Petsonk EL, Attfield MD (2010) Pneumoconiosis among underground bituminous coal miners in the United States: is silicosis becoming more frequent? Occup Environ Med 67(10):652–656
Leonard R, Zulfikar R, Stansbury R (2020) Coal mining and lung disease in the 21st century, current opinion in Pulmonary Medicine: March 2020, vol 26, No. 2, pp 135–141. https://doi.org/10.1097/MCP.0000000000000653
McPherson MJ (1993) Subsurface Ventilation and Environmental Engineering. Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, USA
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and Meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. The PRISMA Group. PLoS Med 6(6):e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed1000097
Morgan WKC, Burgess DB, Jacobson G, O’Brien RJ, Pendergrass EP, Reger RB, Shoub EP (1973) The prevalence of coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in US coal miners. Arch Environ Health Int J 27(4):221–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/00039896.1973.10666356
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine (NAS) (2018) Monitoring and sampling approaches to assess underground coal mine dust exposures. The National Academies Press, Washington DC, USA, pp 1–150
National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (1995) Criteria for a recommended standard. Occupational exposure to respirable coal mine dust. Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (2010) Occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica-review of health effects literature and preliminary quantitative risk assessment, OSHA-2010-0034.
Perret JL, Plush B, Lachapelle P, Hinks T, Walter C, Clarke P, Irving L, Brady P, Dharmagei SC, Stewart A (2017) Coal mine dust lung disease in the modern era. Asian Pac Soc Respirol 22:662–670. https://doi.org/10.1111/resp.13034
Pollock DE, Potts JD, Joy GJ (2010) Investigation into dust exposures and mining practices in mines in the southern Appalachian Region. Min Eng 62(2):44–49
Sarver E, Kelesa C, Rezaee M (2019) Beyond conventional metrics: Comprehensive characterization of respirable coal mine dust. Int J Coal Geol 207:84–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.coal.2019.03.015
Sarver E, Keles C, Lowers H, Zulfikar R, Zell-Baran L et al (2020) Mineralogic analysis of respirable dust from 24 underground coal mines in four geographic regions of the United States. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 201:2635
Scaggs ML (2016) Development and implication of a standard methodology for respirable coal mine dust characterization with thermogravimetric analysis. MS thesis in Mining Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA, USA
Schatzel SJ (2009) Identifying sources of respirable quartz and silica dust in underground coal mines in southern West Virginia, western Virginia, and eastern Kentucky. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory, Pittsburgh, USA
Schatzel SJ, Stewart BW (2012) A provenance study of mineral matter in coal from Appalachian basin coal mining regions and implications regarding the respirable health of underground coal workers: a geochemical and nd isotope investigation. Int J Coal Geol 94:123–136
Shekarian M, Mellat Parast M (2020) An integrative approach to supply chain disruption risk and resilience management: a literature review. Int J Log Res Appl 8:1–29
Shekarian Y, Rahimi E, Shekarian N, Rezaee M, Roghanchi P (2021a) An analysis of contributing mining factors in coal workers’ pneumoconiosis prevalence in the United States coal mines, 1986–2018. Int J Coal Sci Technol 8:1227–1237. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-021-00464-y
Shekarian Y, Rahimi E, Roghanchi P, Shekarian N (2021b) ‘Evaluating the effect of coal seam height and mine size on coal workers’ pneumoconiosis prevalence in the United States coal mines, 1986–2018. In: Mine ventilation, proceedings of the 18th North American Mine ventilation symposium, 12–17 June, 2021, Rapid City, South Dakota, USA, pp 428–435. https://doi.org/10.1201/9781003188476-44
Suarthana E, Laney AS, Storey E, Hale JM, Attfield MD (2012) Coal workers’ pneumoconiosis in the United States: Regional differences 40 years after implementation of the 1969 Federal Coal Mine Health and Safety Act. Occup Environ Med 68(12):908–913
Thakur P (2019) Advanced mine ventilation: respirable coal dust, combustible gas and mine fire control. Advanced Mine Ventilation. 1st Edition, Elsevier Science, 105–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-0
Torgerson C (2003) Systematic Reviews. Bloomsbury Publishing, Dec 1, 2003 - Education, pp 114. ISBN:1441184686, 9781441184689
Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E (2014) Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev 3(1):74
Vallyathan V, Landsittel DP, Petsonk EL, Kahn J, Parker JE, Oslowy KT, Green FH (2011) The influence of dust standards on the prevalence and severity of coal worker’s pneumoconiosis at autopsy in the United States of America. Arch Pathol Lab Med 135(12):1550–1556. https://doi.org/10.5858/arpa.2010-0393-OA
Volkwein JC, Vinson RP, Page SJ, McWilliams LJ, Joy GJ, Mischler SE, Tuchman DP (2006) Laboratory and field performance of a continuously measuring personal respirable dust monitor. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Pittsburgh Research Laboratory Pittsburgh, PA, USA
Walton WH, Dodgson J, Hadden GG, Jacobsen M (1977) The effect of quartz and other non-coal dusts in coal workers’ pneumoconiosis. Inhaled particles IV part 2. Pergamon Press, Oxford Edition, pp 669–689
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) (75D30119C06390).
Funding
The funding source is included in the “Acknowledgements” section. The authors’ contributions are listed under “Credit Author Statement”.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
YS: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization. ER: Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing, Visualization. MR: Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, conceptualization, Investigation, Writing – Review & Editing, Guarantor of the paper. PR: Supervision, Project administration, Funding acquisition, conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data Curation, Writing – Review & Editing, Guarantor of the paper. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.
Corresponding authors
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Shekarian, Y., Rahimi, E., Rezaee, M. et al. A systematic review of occupational exposure to respirable coal mine dust (RCMD) in the U.S. mining industry. Int J Coal Sci Technol 10, 29 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-023-00586-5
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40789-023-00586-5