Literature DB >> 1821384

Complex mixtures in industrial workspaces: lessons for indoor air quality evaluations.

B E Lippy1, R W Turner.   

Abstract

Acceptable occupational exposure levels for hundreds of airborne concentrations of dusts, vapors, fumes, and gases have been set by consensus organizations and regulatory bodies for decades. These levels have established tremendous precedent and are tempting reference values in the relatively new field of indoor air quality evaluations where validated criteria are greatly needed. The American Conference of Government Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) has been the most visible and productive group setting these guidelines for industrial exposure. The ACGIH Chemical Substances Committee has published an annual list of threshold limit values (TLVs) for more than 40 years. Currently the list covers more than 400 substances. In 1989, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) published updated permissible exposure limits (PELs) for approximately 600 substances. Most PELs before this update were adopted from the 1968 ACGIH list of TLVs and consensus standards of the American Standards Association. This OSHA update has resulted in reductions of 212 PELs and the addition of 164 new levels. The magnitude of the problem of protecting workers can be seen by the small fraction that the OSHA PELs represent of the more than 60,000 entries in the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health's Registry of Toxic Effects of Chemical Substances. None of these levels, whether guidelines or regulatory requirements, are established based on any possible synergistic effect with other chemicals. The only guidance given by the ACGIH for synergistic effects is that such cases must be determined individually. Clearly, there are major drawbacks in using occupational standards and guidelines for evaluating the health effects of chemical agents that can be found in office settings, often in concentrations orders of magnitude less than what is routinely measured in the workplace. These guidelines are even less valuable when the concern is the complex mixing of chemicals in nonoccupational environments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1991        PMID: 1821384      PMCID: PMC1568416          DOI: 10.1289/ehp.919581

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Environ Health Perspect        ISSN: 0091-6765            Impact factor:   9.031


  4 in total

1.  Corporate influence on threshold limit values.

Authors:  B I Castleman; G E Ziem
Journal:  Am J Ind Med       Date:  1988       Impact factor: 2.214

2.  A critical review of time-weighted average as an index of exposure and dose, and of its key elements.

Authors:  G Atherley
Journal:  Am Ind Hyg Assoc J       Date:  1985-09

3.  Dose-related effects of dichloromethane on rat brain in short-term inhalation exposure.

Authors:  H Savolainen; K Kurppa; P Pfäffli; H Kivistö
Journal:  Chem Biol Interact       Date:  1981-03-15       Impact factor: 5.192

4.  Asthma induced by dust from urea-formaldehyde foam insulating material.

Authors:  E Frigas; W V Filley; C E Reed
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1981-06       Impact factor: 9.410

  4 in total
  3 in total

1.  Personal exposure to mixtures of volatile organic compounds: modeling and further analysis of the RIOPA data.

Authors:  Stuart Batterman; Feng-Chiao Su; Shi Li; Bhramar Mukherjee; Chunrong Jia
Journal:  Res Rep Health Eff Inst       Date:  2014-06

2.  Extreme value analyses of VOC exposures and risks: A comparison of RIOPA and NHANES datasets.

Authors:  Feng-Chiao Su; Chunrong Jia; Stuart Batterman
Journal:  Atmos Environ (1994)       Date:  2012-12-01       Impact factor: 4.798

3.  Ultra-High Response Detection of Alcohols Based on CdS/MoS2 Composite.

Authors:  Lei Liu; Weiye Yang; Hui Zhang; Xueqian Yan; Yingkai Liu
Journal:  Nanoscale Res Lett       Date:  2022-01-06       Impact factor: 5.418

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.