(1) Background: Small, lightweight, low-cost optical particulate matter (PM) monitors are becoming popular in the field of occupational exposure monitoring, because these devices allow for real-time static measurements to be collected at multiple locations throughout a work site as well as being used as wearables providing personal exposure estimates. Prior to deployment, devices should be evaluated to optimize and quantify measurement accuracy. However, this can turn out to be difficult, as no standardized methods are yet available and different deployments may require different evaluation procedures. To gain insight in the relevance of different variables that may affect the monitor readings, six PM monitors were selected based on current availability and evaluated in the laboratory; (2) Methods: Existing strategies that were judged appropriate for the evaluation of PM monitors were reviewed and seven evaluation variables were selected, namely the type of dust, within- and between-device variations, nature of the power supply, temperature, relative humidity, and exposure pattern (peak and constant). Each variable was tested and analyzed individually and, if found to affect the readings significantly, included in a final correction model specific to each monitor. Finally, the accuracy for each monitor after correction was calculated; (3) Results: The reference materials and exposure patterns were found to be main factors needing correction for most monitors. One PM monitor was found to be sufficiently accurate at concentrations up to 2000 µg/m³ PM_2.5, with other monitors appropriate at lower concentrations. The average accuracy increased by up to three-fold compared to when the correction model did not include evaluation variables; (4) Conclusions: Laboratory evaluation and readings correction can greatly increase the accuracy of PM monitors and set boundaries for appropriate use. However, this requires identifying the relevant evaluation variables, which are heavily reliant on how the monitors are used in the workplace. This, together with the lack of current consensus on standardized procedures, shows the need for harmonized PM monitor evaluation methods for occupational exposure monitoring.

A rapid review was undertaken to consider the evidence for human exposure to harmful microorganisms from indoor air and surfaces. Published information about these contaminants, as well as measures to control them, including building design and energy conservation, were included in this review. Information on domestic dwellings, office environments, and other non-industrial settings was assessed to determine the reported prevalence, persistence, and transmission of microorganisms in these settings. Environmental factors that influence indoor microbiological colonization were also included. The evidence strongly indicates that ventilation is the primary factor for controlling indoor dampness, helping to mitigate indoor mold colonization and the accumulation of other indoor contaminants, including infectious microorganisms. Although modern building airtightness, including retrofits of older builds, contributes to thermal comfort and building energy efficiency, this may also limit a building’s ventilation capacity. This in turn can potentially allow biological pollutants to accumulate, increasing the likelihood of harmful exposures and ill-health effects for building occupants. Effective building design and maintenance, which promote appropriate levels of air exchange for indoor spaces, are therefore important for the control of indoor moisture and microbiological contamination.