Literature DB >> 9232013

Compliance versus risk in assessing occupational exposures.

R Tornero-Velez1, E Symanski, H Kromhout, R C Yu, S M Rappaport.   

Abstract

Assessments of occupational exposures to chemicals are generally based upon the practice of compliance testing in which the probability of compliance is related to the exceedance [gamma, the likelihood that any measurement would exceed an occupational exposure limit (OEL)] and the number of measurements obtained. On the other hand, workers' chronic health risks generally depend upon cumulative lifetime exposures which are not directly related to the probability of compliance. In this paper we define the probability of "overexposure" (theta) as the likelihood that individual risk (a function of cumulative exposure) exceeds the risk inherent in the OEL (a function of the OEL and duration of exposure). We regard theta as a relevant measure of individual risk for chemicals, such as carcinogens, which produce chronic effects after long-term exposures but not necessarily for acutely-toxic substances which can produce effects relatively quickly. We apply a random-effects model to data from 179 groups of workers, exposed to a variety of chemical agents, and obtain parameter estimates for the group mean exposure and the within- and between-worker components of variance. These estimates are then combined with OELs to generate estimates of gamma and theta. We show that compliance testing can significantly underestimate the health risk when sample sizes are small. That is, there can be large probabilities of compliance with typical sample sizes, despite the fact that large proportions of the working population have individual risks greater than the risk inherent in the OEL. We demonstrate further that, because the relationship between theta and gamma depends upon the within- and between-worker components of variance, it cannot be assumed a priori that exceedance is a conservative surrogate for overexposure. Thus, we conclude that assessment practices which focus upon either compliance or exceedance are problematic and recommend that employers evaluate exposures relative to the probabilities of overexposure.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1997        PMID: 9232013     DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1997.tb00866.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Risk Anal        ISSN: 0272-4332            Impact factor:   4.000


  10 in total

1.  STATIC AND ROVING SENSOR DATA FUSION FOR SPATIO-TEMPORAL HAZARD MAPPING WITH APPLICATION TO OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT.

Authors:  Guilherme Ludwig; Tingjin Chu; Jun Zhu; Haonan Wang; Kirsten Koehler
Journal:  Ann Appl Stat       Date:  2017-04-08       Impact factor: 2.083

2.  Workplace measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: descriptive analysis and potential uses for exposure assessment.

Authors:  J Lavoue; M C Friesen; I Burstyn
Journal:  Ann Occup Hyg       Date:  2012-09-05

3.  Air samples versus biomarkers for epidemiology.

Authors:  Y S Lin; L L Kupper; S M Rappaport
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2005-11       Impact factor: 4.402

4.  Assessment of occupational personal sound exposures for music instructors.

Authors:  Kathryn Crawford; Nathan B Fethke; Thomas M Peters; T Renée Anthony
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2021-01-28       Impact factor: 2.155

5.  Carpet-dust chemicals as measures of exposure: Implications of variability.

Authors:  Todd P Whitehead; John R Nuckols; Mary H Ward; Stephen M Rappaport
Journal:  Emerg Themes Epidemiol       Date:  2012-03-23

6.  Optimizing cost-efficiency in mean exposure assessment--cost functions reconsidered.

Authors:  Svend Erik Mathiassen; Kristian Bolin
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2011-05-21       Impact factor: 4.615

7.  Estimating personal exposures from a multi-hazard sensor network.

Authors:  Christopher Zuidema; Larissa V Stebounova; Sinan Sousan; Alyson Gray; Oliver Stroh; Geb Thomas; Thomas Peters; Kirsten Koehler
Journal:  J Expo Sci Environ Epidemiol       Date:  2019-06-04       Impact factor: 5.563

8.  Commentary by Spear, R. on "Integration of water, sanitation, and hygiene for the prevention and control of neglected tropical diseases: a rationale for inter-sectoral collaboration:" can the control of NTDs profit from a good WASH?

Authors:  Robert C Spear
Journal:  PLoS Negl Trop Dis       Date:  2013-09-26

9.  Exposure Estimation and Interpretation of Occupational Risk: Enhanced Information for the Occupational Risk Manager.

Authors:  Martha Waters; Lauralynn McKernan; Andrew Maier; Michael Jayjock; Val Schaeffer; Lisa Brosseau
Journal:  J Occup Environ Hyg       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.155

10.  Low-Cost, Distributed Environmental Monitors for Factory Worker Health.

Authors:  Geb W Thomas; Sinan Sousan; Marcus Tatum; Xiaoxing Liu; Christopher Zuidema; Mitchell Fitzpatrick; Kirsten A Koehler; Thomas M Peters
Journal:  Sensors (Basel)       Date:  2018-05-03       Impact factor: 3.576

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.