China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Answers
Published in Ken Addley, MCQs, MEQs and OSPEs in Occupational Medicine, 2023
The requirement for health surveillance is dependent on the level of residual risk. It is not always required when there is exposure to asthma-causing agents if there is no residual risk after the control measures are in place. Health surveillance may be required even when exposures are below the occupational exposure limits. It differs from medical screening which is typically related to health promotion and generally does not distinguish between the health effects of exposure and those from pre-existing conditions.
Effect of Vibration
Published in Verna Wright, Eric L. Radin, Mechanics of Human Joints, 2020
J. E. Smeathers, P. S. Helliwell
Standard methods of quantifying vibration exposure and dosage have already been covered. International standards have also been defined for occupational exposure limits reflected by reduced comfort level and fatigue-decreased proficiency boundaries (7). When a relationship between WBV and a particular condition has been sought (for example spinal osteoarthrosis), few studies have measured the vibration dose or the duration of exposure in terms of the international standards. Clearly, in retrospective surveys, this information is impossible to obtain, and in other situations such measurements are impractical. In reviewing the literature, a relationship between the dose received and the biological effect observed is therefore difficult to establish. This and other methodological difficulties have recently been reviewed (1).
Use of Biomarkers in Occupational Safety and Health
Published in Anthony P. DeCaprio, Toxicologic Biomarkers, 2006
In the occupational setting, health or medical surveillance is conducted for employees who work with hazardous agents, with markers of early precursors in the disease process an obvious preference. Health surveillance is generally needed: (i) to confirm adequacy of workplace controls (engineering work practices or personal protective equipment), (ii) to support the appropriateness of an occupational exposure limit, and (iii) to reduce uncertainty in the exposure assessment process.
Application of multiple occupational health risk assessment models in occupation health risk prediction of trichloroethylene in the electroplating and electronics industries
Published in International Journal of Occupational Safety and Ergonomics, 2023
Shibiao Su, Zhiming Liang, Sheng Zhang, Haijuan Xu, Jinru Chen, Zhuandi Zhao, Meibian Zhang, Tianjian Wang
Based on the field investigation, the number of workers, duration of work, daily usage of TCE, exposure time, engineering protection measures and PPE were collected for all industries. Air sampling and laboratory tests for TCE were performed according to the standard in China described in GBZ 159-2004 ‘Specifications of air sampling for hazardous substances monitoring in the workplace’ [21] and GBZ/T 160.46-2004 ‘Methods for determination of halogenated unsaturated hydrocarbons in the air of workplace’ [22]. The 8-h time weighted average concentration (C-TWA) and short-term exposure concentration (C-STEL) were tested. According to Chinese standard requirements GBZ 2.1-2007 ‘Occupational Exposure Limits for Hazards in the workplace. Part 1: chemical hazardous agents’ [23], the permissible concentration time-weighted average (PC-TWA) for TCE is 30 mg/m3 and the permissible concentration short-term exposure limit (PC-STEL) is allowed to be less than twice the PC-TWA.
Compensating for missing data in the OHRKAN cohort study examining total leisure noise exposure among adolescents
Published in International Journal of Audiology, 2022
Johannes Wendl, Doris Gerstner, Jonas Huß, Veronika Weilnhammer, Christina Jenkac, Carmelo Pérez-Àlvarez, Thomas Steffens, Caroline Herr, Stefanie Heinze
This study has several limitations. Though ISO 1999:2013(E) (International Organization for Standardization 2013) explicitly states that it is not limited to occupational settings, the use of occupational thresholds for leisure noise exposure is discussed (i.e. Carter et al. 2014; Jiang et al. 2016). In their review, Neitzel and Fligor (2017) cite studies of short-term exposure of noise that suggest possible differences in the effect of occupational and leisure noise. Furthermore, occupational thresholds are developed for a maximum of 40-year exposure and hence might not be extrapolated on time spans compatible for leisure noise. In absence of dose–response based values from recreational settings, they nevertheless recommend the use of occupational exposure limits. Longitudinal studies on dose–response relationship need to be done to identify suitable exposure limits for leisure noise and their prevalence.
Potential airborne asbestos exposures in dentistry: a comprehensive review and risk assessment
Published in Critical Reviews in Toxicology, 2021
A. Michael Ierardi, Claire Mathis, Ania Urban, Neva Jacobs, Brent Finley, Shannon Gaffney
When calculated, upper-bound 8-h TWA exposures for a product-specific task were compared to current and historical occupational exposure limits and guidelines for asbestos (0.1 f/cc or greater). These exposures were also categorized into one of the five exposure profile categories (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) according to the methodology set forth by the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA) (Jahn et al. 2015, Chapter 5). Briefly, using this recommended strategy to determine compliance to an occupational exposure limit (OEL), the true 95th percentile of the exposure dataset (X0.95) is compared to varying percentages of the target OEL; specifically, X0.95≤1% of OEL (Category 0, trivial to non-existent exposure), 1%<X0.95≤10% of OEL (Category 1, highly controlled exposure), 10%<X0.95≤50% of OEL (Category 2, well controlled exposure), 50%<X0.95≤100% of OEL (Category 3, controlled exposure), and X0.95>100% of OEL (Category 4, poorly controlled exposure) (Hewett et al. 2006; Jahn et al. 2015, Chapter 5). An “unacceptable” exposure occurs when X0.95 exceeds the OEL (Hewett et al. 2006, p. 570). The X0.95 point estimate was calculated from the product-specific 8-h TWA datasets using AIHA’s IHSTAT© tool (AIHA, Falls Church, VA, USA). Using this tool, the available dataset was first assessed for lognormality. The data were determined to be lognormal and so the X0.95 point estimate using lognormal parametric statistics was reported.