China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
The concept of the exposure limit for workplace health hazards
Published in Sue Reed, Dino Pisaniello, Geza Benke, Principles of Occupational Health & Hygiene, 2020
The European Scientific Committee on Occupational Exposure Limits (SCOEL) has defined OELs as ‘limits for exposure via the airborne route such that exposure, even when repeated on a regular basis throughout a working life, will not lead to adverse effects on the health of the exposed person and/or their progeny at any time (as far as can be predicted from the contemporary state of knowledge)’ (ECESAI, 2010). This definition implies that the objective of European OELs is to protect all workers, including potentially susceptible individuals such as unborn offspring. By contrast, the ACGIH® approach is to set limits that protect ‘nearly all workers’. SCOEL’s methodology discusses setting two types of OELs: ‘health-based’ OELs, which are established on the basis of a clear threshold dose below which exposure is not expected to cause adverse effects; and ‘risk-based’ OELs, where it is not possible to define a threshold (e.g. genotoxic carcinogens and respiratory sensitisers) and where any exposure may carry some risk.
Regulatory Governance Approaches for Emerging Technologies
Published in Diana M. Bowman, Elen Stokes, Arie Rip, Embedding New Technologies into Society, 2017
Bärbel Dorbeck-Jung, Diana M. Bowman
According to EU Directives, employers are obliged to care for all aspects of safety and health in the workplace according to the state of science.7 With regard to hazardous substances, the legal duty to care includes the obligation to limit the employees’ exposure following generally acknowledged values (‘Occupational Exposure Limits’ (OELs) and ‘Derived No-Effect Levels’ (DNELs); see, for example, [52]). The intentional or unintentional exposure to free nanoparticles of any type in the workplace creates certain difficulties in relation to the duty to comply with this obligation due to two crucial uncertainties. First, since there is no evidence at this time as to whether exposure to free any or specific types and/or families of nanoparticles are harmful to human health, we do not know whether the legal obligation applies. Clarification is still needed whether nano- materials, or which types of free nanoparticles under what specific conditions, should be characterised as hazardous substances.
List of Chemical Substances
Published in T.S.S. Dikshith, and Safety, 2016
Exposures to arsenic pentoxide dust causes eye irritation, itching, burning, mild temporary redness and/or inflammation of the eye membrane (conjunctivitis), lacrimation, diplopia (temporary double vision), photophobia (abnormal sensitivity to light), vision dimness, and other transient eye damage or lesion formation (ulceration), cough, redness, sore throat, headache, dizziness, weakness, shortness of breath, and pain in chest. There may be a delay in the appearance of the symptoms of poisoning. Ingestion of arsenic pentoxide causes vomiting, abdominal pain, diarrhea, severe thirst, muscular cramps, and shock. Arsenic pentoxide causes adverse health effects to the eyes, inflammation and redness of the skin (erythroderma) with skin shedding (exfoliative dermatitis) may result from hyperkeratosis, pulmonary edema, acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), and respiratory failure. Cardiovascular disturbances (heart rate, sinus tachycardia, and ventricular dysrhythmias), acute degenerative disease or dysfunction of the brain (encepha-lopathy) may develop and progress over several days, leading to delirium, and confusion. Severe exposures to arsenic pentoxide cause seizures, brain swelling (cerebral edema) and brain vessel bleeding (micro-hemorrhages) and damage in, peripheral nervous system, bone marrow (hematopoietic changes), liver, and lungs. Exposure far above the occupational exposure limits (OEL) may result in death.
Comprehensive characterization of firing byproducts generated from small arms firing of lead-free frangible ammunition
Published in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2022
Ryan McNeilly, Jacob Kirsh, John Hatch, Ariel Parker, Jerimiah Jackson, Steven Fisher, John Kelly, Christin Duran
In USAF small arms ranges, symptoms occurred despite gaseous compounds and total Cu particulate mass in the firing byproducts at concentrations well below relevant occupational exposure limits (Moran and Ott 2008; Methner et al. 2013). The current occupational exposure limit used for instructors in USAF small arms ranges firing LFF ammunition is total Cu at an 8-hr time-weighted average of 0.1 mg/m³, which is the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) permissible exposure limit for Cu fume. Since previous exposure assessments have suggested this value is not protective against symptoms reported by small arms range instructors, additional work is needed to determine the source and mechanisms for reported health symptoms. The first step is to complete a robust characterization of the physicochemical properties of aerosols and gases emitted during firing.
Exposure to benzene and toluene of gasoline station workers in Khon Kaen, Thailand and adverse effects
Published in Human and Ecological Risk Assessment: An International Journal, 2021
Sunisa Chaiklieng, Pornnapa Suggaravetsiri, Norbert Kaminski, Herman Autrup
A previous study in Thailand found that the concentrations of benzene and toluene at a gasoline station were 92.75 ± 16.67 ppb and 195.34 ± 61.04 ppb, respectively (Tunsaringkarn et al. 2012). The concentration of benzene was very close to the occupational exposure limit (OEL) of 100 ppb, set according to the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL) (2016), and the toluene concentration compared with the threshold limit value (TLV) of 20 ppm, set by ACGIH (2019), was lower than 1% of the TLV. A study of the air concentrations at a gasoline station in another Asian country, Iran, found that the benzene concentration was 629.17 ± 123.34 ppb, and the toluene concentration was 476.67 ± 29.19 ppb, which were higher than the benzene and toluene concentrations found in Thailand (Chaiklieng et al. 2015, 2019a). Our previous study showed that concentrations of benzene at gasoline stations were found to be higher in the urban and suburban areas of Khon Kaen province, in the northeast of Thailand, compared to those in its rural areas (Chaiklieng et al. 2015).
Cleaning workers’ exposure to volatile organic compounds and particulate matter during floor polish removal and reapplication
Published in Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 2019
Joonas Ruokolainen, Marko Hyttinen
The TVOC concentrations during the CFPR and FPA were vastly higher than typically (120–170 µg/m3) in indoor air.[21–24] Even though the concentrations of glycol ethers were below their Finnish occupational exposure limit values (OEL) and U.S. permissible exposure limit values (PEL), the possibility of irritative health effects might exist. The Finnish OEL values for EGBE, DPGME, and EGPE are 98, 310, and 110 mg/m3, respectively, and the corresponding US PEL values for EGBE and DPGME are 240 and 600 mg/m3, respectively.[25,26] The highest measured concentrations (with correction factors applied) for EGBE and DPGME were 23.7 and 21.5 mg/m3, respectively. The highest measured concentration for EGPE was 0.4 mg/m3 (using the same correction factor of 2.0 as EGBE and DEGBE).