Patty's Industrial Hygiene, Volume 2 E-Book
275,99 €
Mehr erfahren.
- Herausgeber: John Wiley & Sons
- Kategorie: Wissenschaft und neue Technologien
- Sprache: Englisch
Since the first edition in 1948, Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology has become a flagship publication for Wiley. During its nearly seven decades in print, it has become a standard reference for the fields of occupational health and toxicology. The volumes on industrial hygiene are cornerstone reference works for not only industrial hygienists but also chemists, engineers, toxicologists, lawyers, and occupational safety personnel. Volume 2 covers Chemical Exposure Evaluation and Control. Along with the updated and revised chapters from the prior edition, this volume has two new chapters: Sensor Technology and Control Banding.
Sie lesen das E-Book in den Legimi-Apps auf:
Seitenzahl: 1302
Veröffentlichungsjahr: 2021
Ähnliche
Table of Contents
Cover
Title Page
Copyright
Contributors
PREFACE
USEFUL EQUIVALENTS AND CONVERSION FACTORS
Part III: CHEMICAL EXPOSURE EVALUATION
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF EXPOSURE TO INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
3 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING STRATEGY
4 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING PRACTICAL APPROACH
5 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING FOR METALS AND INORGANIC COMPOUNDS
6 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
7 BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF EXPOSURES TO MIXTURES
8 TRENDS AND CONCLUSIONS
Bibliography
REAL‐TIME ASSESSMENT OF AIR CONTAMINANTS USING VIDEO EXPOSURE MONITORING (VEM) METHODS AND TECHNIQUES
1 INTRODUCTION
2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE
3 DESCRIPTION OF OCCUPATIONAL VIDEO EXPOSURE MONITORING
4 SELECTED DIRECT‐READING INSTRUMENTS
5 WIRELESS DATA COMMUNICATIONS
6 VIDEO EQUIPMENT
7 RASPBERRY P – DISRUPTOR INNOVATION FOR VEM
8 MIXING SOFTWARE/INSTRUMENT
9 DATA INTERPRETATION
10 DISCUSSION
11 FOUR CASE STUDIES
12 SUMMARY
13 FUTURE APPLICATIONS OF VEM
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
Bibliography
COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY IN INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE
1 INTRODUCTION
2 DESIGNING COMPUTED TOMOGRAPHY SYSTEMS
3 CT ALGORITHMS FOR THE INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE APPLICATION
4 SIMULATION STUDIES OF RECONSTRUCTION ALGORITHMS
5 ORS GEOMETRIES FOR CT IMAGING OF CHEMICALS IN AIR
6 FIELD STUDIES
7 BACKGROUND OPTICAL REMOTE SENSING INSTRUMENTATION
8 CHALLENGES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Bibliography
MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF INDOOR AIR CONTAMINANT CONCENTRATIONS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 CHEMICAL EMISSION RATE FUNCTIONS
3 DISPERSION PATTERNS AND WORKER (RECEPTOR) LOCATION
4 SPECIFIC MODELS
5 THE MARKOV CHAIN METHOD
6 MODELING TURBULENT EDDY DIFFUSION AND ADVECTION
7 IMPLEMENTATION OF MATHEMATICAL MODELS IN MICROSOFT EXCEL
8 MODEL VALIDATION
9 ADDITIONAL MODELS AND RESOURCES
10 MODEL SELECTION
Bibliography
SENSORS
1 INTRODUCTION
2 PARTICULATE MATTER (PM) SENSORS
3 GAS SENSORS
4 PHYSICAL AGENTS
5 APPROACHES FOR SENSOR USE
6 CONCLUSIONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS
References
Part IV: CHEMICAL EXPOSURE CONTROL
CHARACTERIZING AIR CONTAMINANT EMISSION SOURCES
1 THE EMISSION INVENTORY
2 ELEMENTS OF THE EMISSION INVENTORY
3 QUANTIFYING EMISSIONS
4 EMISSION ESTIMATES FROM PLANT AND COMPANY RECORDS AND REPORTS
5 USE OF THE EMISSION INVENTORY
Bibliography
ENGINEERING CONTROL OF AIRBORNE CONTAMINANTS: HISTORY, PHILOSOPHY, AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF PRIMARY APPROACHES
1 INTRODUCTION
2 ENGINEERING CONTROL TYPES
3 ENGINEERING CONTROL STRATEGIES
4 STANDARDS AND GUIDELINES
Bibliography
INDUSTRIAL VENTILATION
1 INTRODUCTION
2 FUNDAMENTAL DEFINITIONS AND PHYSICAL RELATIONSHIPS
3 LOCAL EXHAUST VENTILATION
4 FACTORS INFLUENCING THE DESIGN OF NEW LEV SYSTEMS
5 DILUTION VENTILATION
6 TESTING AND MONITORING
7 MAKEUP AIR AND RECIRCULATION OF EXHAUST AIR
References
Further Reading
RESPIRATORY PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT
1 HISTORICAL REVIEW
2 RESPIRATOR PERFORMANCE
3 RESPIRATOR CLASSIFICATION
4 RESPIRATOR SELECTION AND USE
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Bibliography
CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
1 INTRODUCTION
2 BARRIERS USED IN CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
3 CHEMICALS USED FOR EVALUATING CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
4 CLASSIFICATION FOR CHEMICALS
5 STANDARDS FOR CHEMICAL PROTECTIVE CLOTHING
GLOSSARY
CONTROL BANDING: BACKGROUND, EVOLUTION, AND APPLICATION
1 INTRODUCTION
2 PART I: ESTABLISHING THE BASIS FOR CONTROL BANDING APPROACHES
3 PART II: HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CONTROL BANDING
4 PART III: VALIDATION AND VERIFICATION OF CB STRATEGIES
5 PART IV: CB EVALUATION AND THE INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE
6 PART V: PRACTICAL EXAMPLES OF CB APPLICATION FOR THE NEW IH
7 PART VI: DISCUSSION
8 PART VII: SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Bibliography
OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH LAW
1 INTRODUCTION TO THE FEDERAL OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH ACT
2 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH STANDARDS DEVELOPMENT
3 EMPLOYER DUTIES UNDER THE OSH ACT
4 CHALLENGING A STANDARD AFTER PROMULGATION
5 ENFORCEMENT OF THE OSH ACT
6 CONTESTATION PROCEEDINGS
7 RIGHTS OF EMPLOYEES AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES UNDER THE OSH ACT
8 VOLUNTARY COMPLIANCE PROGRAMS
9 REGULATION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH BY THE STATES
10 REGULATION OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH BY OTHER FEDERAL STATUTES
11 FUTURE OF OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH LAW
ENDNOTES
Bibliography
Index
End User License Agreement
List of Tables
Chapter 2
TABLE 1 Summary of descriptive statistics for each study phase of nitrous oxide ...
TABLE 2 Summary of the results of radiation exposure to the hands in two trials ...
TABLE 3 Observations of ergonomic risk factors.
TABLE 4 Ergonomic findings and recommendations.
Chapter 7
TABLE 2 Specialists participating in risk assessment of new chemical manufact...
TABLE 3 Environmental control approaches.
TABLE 4 Examples of material replacement from EPA WRITE program.
TABLE 5 Step model for the substitution process.
TABLE 6 Categories for a corporate toxic use reduction program.
TABLE 7 Characteristics of historic generic solvent categories.
TABLE 8 Dust‐controlled forms of rubber production chemicals: comparative per...
TABLE 9 Task‐oriented air sampling.
TABLE 10 Examples of process change technology from EPA WRITE program.
Chapter 8
TABLE 2 Major industrial activities covered by OSHA standards which include v...
TABLE 3 Ventilation control hierarchy.
TABLE 4 Application of local exhaust and general exhaust ventilation.
Chapter 9
TABLE 2 Assigned protection factors.
a
TABLE 3 Description of filter classes and key test parameter for filters cert...
TABLE 4 Bench test requirements for NIOSH‐certified gas and vapor cartridges ...
TABLE 5 Selection options for escape respirators.
Chapter 10
TABLE 2 Chemical protective clothing.a
TABLE 3 Chemicals for evaluating of chemical protective clothing according to...
TABLE 4 Barrier materials and manufacturers. Selection recommendations for ch...
TABLE 5 Chemical classes and subclasses.
Chapter 11
TABLE 2 Selected criteria for assignment of dust to OEBs.
TABLE 3 Occupational exposure bands.
TABLE 4 Allocation of R‐phrases and H‐statements to hazard bands.
List of Illustrations
Chapter 1
FIGURE 7 Absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination (ADME) of che...
Chapter 2
FIGURE 1 (a) Screen shot of drum scooping task: drum is full of powder at th...
FIGURE 2 Work tasks: scooping, weighing, turning (to put filled bag in recei...
FIGURE 3 (a) Based on VEM results showing scooping task after bag 30 signifi...
FIGURE 4 Workplace exposure factors. A: Task‐related exposures, B: incidenta...
FIGURE 5 Schema of occupational video exposure monitoring.
FIGURE 6 Radio telemetry diagram.
FIGURE 7 PIMEX–PC computer interface.
FIGURE 8 FINN–PIMEX computer interface.
FIGURE 9 PIMEX–HSL computer interface.
FIGURE 10 MVTA computer interface.
FIGURE 11 Screenshot of NIOSH EVADE website showing video and sensor data du...
FIGURE 12 Process tank with sealed manway.
FIGURE 13 Ventilated manway charging adapter.
FIGURE 14 Diagram of ventilated manway adapter retrofit (postcontrol).
FIGURE 15 System 1 (Safe Sedate Dental Nasal Mask™).
FIGURE 16 Typical setup for System 1.
FIGURE 17 System 2 (PORTER™) design.
FIGURE 18 Example of camera setup.
FIGURE 19 Typical image of nitrous oxide (shown by circles) from infrared ca...
FIGURE 20 Typical equipment found in a nuclear pharmacy lab: L‐block. Vials ...
FIGURE 21 Advanced extremity gamma instrumentation system. (a) Computer wi...
FIGURE 22 Cumulative dose for two students: Trial 1: Student 1 of height ∼ 6...
FIGURE 23 Instantaneous dose rate in μSv/h for shorter individual (∼64 in....
FIGURE 24 Instantaneous dose rate in μSv/h for taller individual (∼72 in.)...
FIGURE 25 Raspberry Pi with touchscreen. Front view –software opening VEM pr...
FIGURE 26 Raspberry Pi with touchscreen set for recording video and sensor...
FIGURE 27 VEM set up for video, sensor, and heart rate collection using the ...
FIGURE 28 VEM set up for video, sensor, and heart rate collection using the ...
FIGURE 29 Screenshot of VEM playback program showing heart rate and carbon d...
FIGURE 30 Raspberry Pi zero with carbon dioxide (CO
2
) sensor‐attached DJI dr...
Chapter 3
FIGURE 1 Example of a two‐dimensional concentration map of a chemical at one...
FIGURE 2 An example of a commercial medical CT scanner.
FIGURE 3 The medical CT scanner takes X‐rays, as a fan beam, and then rotate...
FIGURE 4 An environmental CT scanner taking a slice of open‐path measurement...
FIGURE 5 A series of five tomographic concentration maps reconstructed for s...
FIGURE 6 An equal‐angle parallel‐projection geometry. Representation of a 10...
FIGURE 7 Horizontal and vertical planes for using CT to map chemicals in air...
FIGURE 8 Example of time‐series maps showing the movement of contaminants ov...
FIGURE 9 An idealized room is represented by 10 by 10 grid of 100 cells. The...
FIGURE 10 (a) Original test maps with three peaks are shown in the left colu...
FIGURE 11 Each CT geometry is illustrated with a pair of diagrams. The left ...
FIGURE 12 Rapid scanning set‐up in the chamber studies using virtual spectro...
FIGURE 13 (a) Point sample map of the entire 45‐minute period for a single p...
FIGURE 14 Top image is the open‐path FTIR configuration over the swine waste...
FIGURE 15 Three CT concentration maps of ammonia over the waste lagoon. Each...
FIGURE 16 Two configurations of an OP‐FTIR spectrometer. (a) Monostatic spec...
FIGURE 17 Absorption spectrum for ammonia.
FIGURE 18 Schematic of a Michelson interferometer.
Chapter 4
FIGURE 1 Hemispherical near‐field zone centered on an emission source on a t...
FIGURE 2 The well‐mixed room dispersion construct with a constant contaminan...
FIGURE 3 The well‐mixed room dispersion construct with an exponentially decr...
FIGURE 4 The near‐field/far‐field dispersion construct with a constant conta...
FIGURE 5 The near‐field/far‐field dispersion construct with an exponentially...
FIGURE 6 The hemispherical turbulent eddy diffusion dispersion constructs wi...
FIGURE 7 A well‐mixed room with a reversible sink (the hatched area). The fi...
FIGURE 8 The well‐mixed room dispersion constructs with a constant contamina...
FIGURE 9 Implemented in MS Excel, IH Mod 2.0 (36) provides Monte Carlo Simul...
Chapter 5
FIGURE 1 Principles of operation for common light‐scattering PM sensors. (a...
FIGURE 2 Comparison of the (a) average lifetime, (b) selectivity, and (c) a...
FIGURE 3 Schematic of (a) electrochemical (EC) and (b) metal‐oxide‐semicondu...
FIGURE 4 Use strategies for sensors (denoted by the boxed “S”). Top panels d...
Chapter 6
FIGURE 1 Synthesis of potential exposures associated with a manufacturing st...
FIGURE 2 Planned welding operation in a confined space with exhaust hoods.
Chapter 7
FIGURE 1 Contaminant generation, release, and exposure model.
FIGURE 2 Integrated controls on an asbestos insulation fabrication workbench...
FIGURE 3 Impact of replacement technology on a chemical process resulting i...
FIGURE 4 Relative dust exposure during bag dumping as determined by video a...
FIGURE 5 Peak dust exposures identified by video real‐time monitoring. (a) ...
FIGURE 6 Chemical processing facility. Liquid reagents L(A) and L(B) are tra...
FIGURE 7 Manufacture of an electronic cabinet. The operational options for c...
FIGURE 8 Robotic buffing of rubber boots.
FIGURE 9 Manufacture of electrical tape showing the closed bulk transport of...
FIGURE 10 Layout of two gray iron foundries. (a) Foundry is designed for str...
FIGURE 11 Well‐integrated workstation in a foundry. (a) Overall layout of f...
FIGURE 12 Layout of semiconductor facility showing service aisle isolated fr...
Chapter 8
FIGURE 1 Relationships among velocity pressure, static pressure, and total p...
FIGURE 2 Interrelated components of a local exhaust system.
FIGURE 3 Airflow characteristics of blowing and exhausting.
FIGURE 4 Areas of Approach for use in
Q
=
VA
.
FIGURE 5 Velocity contours for unflanged circular opening.
FIGURE 6 Typical arrangement for low volume high velocity hood.
FIGURE 7 Simple sketch of local exhaust system.
FIGURE 8 ACGIH‐recommended hood for portable hand grinding.
FIGURE 9 ACGIH‐recommended for welding bench.
FIGURE 10 Representation of ventilation system.
FIGURE 11 Typical friction loss of air in straight duct.
FIGURE 12 Fan and system curve.
FIGURE 13 Typical locations for ventilation measurements: (1) at the face of...
FIGURE 14 Pitot tube used for determining TP, SP, and VP in ductwork.
FIGURE 15 Containment fraction for a hood can be determined in the field us...
Chapter 9
FIGURE 1 Twenty‐five person respirator fit test panels developed by Los Alam...
FIGURE 2 NIOSH respirator fit test panel. NIOSH panel based on face length ...
FIGURE 3 Respirator decision logic.
Chapter 10
FIGURE 1 Permeation.
FIGURE 2 Permeation test.
Chapter 11
FIGURE 1 Factors used in HSE's core model..
FIGURE 2 Control approaches used in COSHH essentials.
FIGURE 3 The hierarchy of OELs.
Guide
Cover Page
Title Page
Copyright
Contributors
Preface
Table of Contents
Begin Reading
Index
WILEY END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT
Pages
iv
vii
viii
ix
x
xi
xii
xiii
xiv
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
15
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
68
70
71
72
74
76
77
79
80
84
92
93
95
96
99
101
102
103
104
105
108
111
112
113
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
131
132
133
136
137
138
139
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
151
152
153
154
156
157
158
159
160
161
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
174
175
176
177
179
181
182
184
188
190
193
196
197
199
200
203
204
206
209
215
216
217
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
230
231
233
235
236
237
239
240
241
244
245
246
247
248
249
251
252
253
254
255
259
260
261
263
264
265
266
267
269
270
271
272
274
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
Patty's Industrial Hygiene
Seventh Edition
Volume 2
Evaluation and Control
Edited by
BARBARA COHRSSEN MS, CIH, FAIHA, MLSSan Francisco, CA, USA
This edition first published 2021
© 2021 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Edition History
John Wiley & Sons, Inc. (6e, 2011)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Barbara Cohrssen to be identified as the author of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Office
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
Editorial Office
111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print‐on‐demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of experimental reagents, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each chemical, piece of equipment, reagent, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging‐in‐Publication Data has been applied for.
978‐1‐119‐79152‐2 (Volume 2, cloth)
978‐1‐119‐43802‐1 (4‐volume Set, cloth)
Cover Image: Factory © Rashad Ashur / Shutterstock, Factory © Arcady / Shutterstock, Rod of Asclepius © Christos Georghiou / Shutterstock, Laboratory glass © Kristyna Henkeova / Shutterstock
Cover Design: Wiley
Contributors
Thomas W. Armstrong, Ph.D., CIH, FAIHA, TWA8HR Occupational Hygiene Consulting, LLC, Branchburg, NJ, USA
Earl W. Arp Jr., Ph.D., CIH, Clemson University, Columbia, SC, USA
William A. Burgess, CIH, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, USA
D. Jeff Burton, PE, CIH (VS), RMCOEH, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Sandra S. Cole, Ph.D., Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Craig E. Colton, CIH, CCR Consulting, LLC, Stillwater, MN, USA
Krister Forsberg, I.H., Lidingö, Sweden
Silvia Fustinoni, Ph.D., Fondazione IRCCS Ca' Granda Ospedale Maggiore Policlinico, Milano, Italy; Environmental and Industrial Toxicology Unit, Department of Clinical Sciences and Community Health, Università degli Studi di Milano, Milano, Italy
Robert L. Harris, Ph.D., CIH, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Nancy B. Hopf, Ph.D., Department of Occupational and Environmental Health, Centre for Primary Care and Public Health (Unisanté), School of Biology and Medicine, University of Lausanne, Lausanne, Switzerland
John Howard, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, DC, USA
Dave Huizen, Ph.D., CIH, Grand Valley State University, Grand Rapids, MI, USA
Kirsten Koehler, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Environmental Health and Engineering, Baltimore, MD, USA
James D. McGlothlin, Ph.D., MPH, CPE, FAIHA, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
Deborah I. Nelson, Ph.D., CIH, FAIHA, Boulder, CO, USA
Mark Nicas, Ph.D., MPH, CIH, FAIHA, University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA
Steven Smith, National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, Washington, DC, USA
Robert D. Soule, CIH, Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, PA, USA
Lori A. Todd, Ph.D., Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Elaine West, MS, CIH, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, ES&H Directorate, Livermore, CA, USA
Fan Xu, Ph.D., CIH, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA
David M. Zalk, Ph.D., CIH, FAIHA, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, ES&H Directorate, Livermore, CA, USA
Misti L. Zamora, Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, Environmental Health and Engineering, Baltimore, MD, USA
James P. Zeigler, Ph.D., LLC, Mechanicsville, VA, USA
Christopher Zuidema, Department of Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences, University of Washington School of Public Health, Seattle, WA, USA
PREFACE
Industrial hygiene is an applied science and a profession. Like other applied sciences such as medicine and engineering, it is founded on basic sciences such as biology, chemistry, mathematics, and physics. In a sense it is a hybrid profession because within its ranks are members of other professions – chemists, engineers, biologists, physicists, physicians, nurses, and lawyers. In their professional practice all are dedicated in one way or another to the purposes of industrial hygiene: the anticipation, recognition, evaluation, and control of work‐related health hazards. The contributors to these volumes come from these professions.
Although the term “industrial hygiene” used to describe our profession is probably of twentieth century origin, we must go further back in history for the origin of its words. The word “industry,” which has a dictionary meaning, “systematic labor for some useful purpose or the creation of something of value,” has its English origin in the fifteenth century. For “hygiene,” we must look even earlier. Hygieia, a daughter of Asclepius who is god of medicine in Greek mythology, was responsible for the preservation of health and prevention of disease. Thus, Hygieia, when she was dealing with people who were engaged in systematic labor for some useful purpose, was practicing our profession, industrial hygiene.
Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology was originated by Frank A. Patty with publication of the first single volume in 1948. In 1958, an updated and expanded second edition was published with his guidance. A second volume, Toxicology, was published in 1963. Frank Patty was a pioneer in industrial hygiene; he was a teacher, practitioner, and manager. In 1946, he served as the eighth president of the American Industrial Hygiene Association. To cap his professional career, he served as director of the Division of Industrial Hygiene for the General Motors Corporation.
At the request of Frank Patty, George and Florence Clayton took over editorship of the ever‐expanding Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology series for the Third Edition of Volume I, General Principles, published in 1978, and Volume II, Toxicology, published in 1981–1982. The First Edition of Volume III, Theory and Rationale of Industrial Hygiene Practice, edited by Lewis and Lester Cralley, was published in 1979, with its second edition published in 1984. The ten‐book, Fourth Edition of Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology, edited by George and Florence Clayton, was published in 1991–1994, and the Third Edition of Volume III, Theory and Rationale of Industrial Hygiene Practice, edited by Robert Harris, Lewis Cralley, and Lester Cralley, was published in 1994. With the agreement and support of George and Florence Clayton, and Lewis and Lester Cralley, Robert Harris edited the fifth edition of Patty's Industrial Hygiene. Vernon Rose and I edited the sixth edition of Patty's Industrial Hygiene with the permission of Robert Harris.
It is now my privilege and honor to follow them and Frank A. Patty as the editor of the seventh edition of the Industrial Hygiene volumes of Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Each of the four volumes and the chapters in the seventh edition are a “stand alone.” Volume 1 covers Chemical Hazard Recognition, Volume 2 addresses Evaluation and Control of Chemical Hazards, Volume 3 considers aspects of Physical and Biological Agents, and Volume 4 considers Management and Specialty Areas of Practice. In addition, Volume 4 contains a complete index covering all four volumes.
Industrial hygiene has been dealt with very broadly in the past editions of Patty's Industrial Hygiene and Toxicology. Chapters have been offered on sampling and analysis, exposure measurement and interpretation, absorption and elimination of toxic materials, instrument calibration, industrial noise, ionizing and nonionizing radiation, heat and cold stress, pressure, lighting, control of exposures, ergonomics, hazardous wastes, and other vital areas of practice. These traditional areas continue to be covered in this edition. Consistent with the past history of Patty's, new areas of industrial hygiene concerns and practices have been addressed: robotics, sensors, social media, nanomaterials, infectious diseases, dermal effects of chemical exposures, mathematical modeling, control banding, product stewardship, construction health and safety issues, cannabis, new energy production, health care work settings, emergency and disaster response, sustainability, and fire safety.
Although industrial hygiene has been practiced in one guise or another for centuries, the most systematic approaches and the most esoteric accomplishments have been made in the past 50 or 60 years – generally in the years since Frank Patty published his first book. This accelerated progress is due primarily to increased public awareness of occupational health and safety issues and need for environmental control as is evidenced by Occupational Safety and Health, Clean Air, and Clean Water legislation at both federal and state levels.
Industrial hygienists know that variability is the key to the measurement and interpretation of workers' exposures. If exposures did not vary, exposure assessment could be limited to a single measurement, the results of which could be acted upon, and the matter filed away as something of no further concern. We know, however, that exposures change, and change is characteristic of the science and practice of our profession as well. We must be alert to recognize new hazards, we must continue to evaluate new and changing stresses, and we must evaluate performance of exposure controls and from time to time upgrade them. These volumes represent the theory and practice of industrial hygiene as they are understood by their chapter authors at the time of their writing. But, as observed by the Greek philosopher Heracleitus about 2500 years ago, “There is nothing permanent except change.” Improvements and changes in theory and practice of industrial hygiene take place continuously and are generally reported in the professional literature. Industrial hygienists, the practitioners, the teachers, and the managers must stay abreast of the professional literature. Furthermore, when an industrial hygienist develops new knowledge, he/she has what almost amounts to an ethical obligation to share it with others in the profession.
One cannot ponder the rapid changes and advancements made in recent decades in science and technology, and in our own profession as well, without wondering at what the next two or three decades will bring. Developments in computer technology, information processing, and exchange and communications have greatly influenced workplaces and the general conduct of commerce and business in the past one or two decades. It has also changed the way we now practice the purposes of industrial hygiene. These changes have accelerated. The possibility for continuously monitoring and computer storage of exposures of individual workers is a reality. World population continues to increase geometrically and is expected to be about eight billion in the year 2025; with improvements in preventive health care, there will be an increasingly older population. Genetic engineering and highly effective pesticides are already improving yields of agricultural commodities; if all goes well in this area, feeding the expanding human population may not be a limiting factor. Globalization of manufacturing and commerce has reduced manufacturing employment in the United States and in Europe, and expanded opportunities for populations in some developing nations. The United States and other developed nations are on their way to becoming world centers of information and innovation.
How will all of this affect the future practice of industrial hygiene? In the Preface to the fourth edition of Patty's, George and Florence Clayton suggested that the future of industrial hygiene is limited only by the narrowness of vision of its practitioners.
I have relied extensively on the well‐written Preface by Robert Harris, Editor of the fifth edition of Patty's Industrial Hygiene. In it I saw a sweeping, but still succinct, review not only of Patty's publications but also of the practice of industrial hygiene itself. His writing is as timely in 2021 as it was 20 years ago.
Occupational and environmental hygiene professionals must be aware of the changes likely to take place, and to develop strategies to assure the profession's full participation in protecting the health and safety of workers and the environment of both today and tomorrow. Our participation, locally, nationally, and globally, will continue to be greatly needed in the coming years.
Barbara Cohrssen
San Francisco, California
USEFUL EQUIVALENTS AND CONVERSION FACTORS
1 kilometer = 0.6214 mile
1 meter = 3.281 feet
1 centimeter = 0.3937 inch
1 micrometer = 1/25,4000 inch = 40 micro inches = 10,000 Angstrom units
1 foot = 30.48 centimeters
1 inch = 25.40 millimeters
1 square kilometer = 0.3861 square mile (U.S.)
1 square foot = 0.0929 square meter
1 square inch = 6.452 square centimeters
1 square mile (U.S.) = 2,589,998 square meters = 640 acres
1 acre = 43,560 square feet = 4047 square meters
1 cubic meter = 35.315 cubic feet
1 cubic centimeter = 0.0610 cubic inch
1 cubic foot = 28.32 liters = 0.0283 cubic meter = 7.481 gallons (U.S.)
1 cubic inch = 16.39 cubic centimeters
1 U.S. gallon = 3,7853 liters = 231 cubic inches = 0.13368 cubic foot
1 liter = 0.9081 quart (dry), 1.057 quarts (U.S., liquid)
1 cubic foot of water = 62.43 pounds (4°C)
1 U.S. gallon of water = 8.345 pounds (4°C)
1 kilogram = 2.205 pounds
1 gram = 15.43 grains
1 pound = 453.59 grams
1 ounce (avoir.) = 28.35 grams
1 gram mole of a perfect gas 24.45 liters (at 25°C and 760 mm Hg barometric pressure)
1 atmosphere = 14.7 pounds per square inch
1 foot of water pressure = 0.4335 pound per square inch
1 inch of mercury pressure = 0.4912 pound per square inch
1 dyne per square centimeter = 0.0021 pound per square foot
1 gram‐calorie = 0.00397 Btu
1 Btu = 778 foot‐pounds
1 Btu per minute = 12.96 foot‐pounds per second
1 hp = 0.707 Btu per second = 550 foot‐pounds per second
1 centimeter per second = 1.97 feet per minute = 0.0224 mile per hour
1 footcandle = 1 lumen incident per square foot = 10.764 lumens incident per square meter
1 grain per cubic foot = 2.29 grams per cubic meter
1 milligram per cubic meter = 0.000437 grain per cubic foot
To convert degrees Celsius to degrees Fahrenheit: °C (9/5) + 32 = °F
To convert degrees Fahrenheit to degrees Celsius: (5/9) (°F − 32) = °C
For solutes in water: 1 mg/liter 1 ppm (by weight)
Atmospheric contamination: 1 mg/liter 1 oz/1000 cu ft (approx)
For gases or vapors in air at 25°C and 760 mm Hg pressure:
To convert mg/liter to ppm (by volume): mg/liter (24,450/mol. wt.) = ppm
To convert ppm to mg/liter: ppm (mol. wt./24,450) = mg/liter
Factors for conversion of some units
Mg/L × 28.32 = Mg/cubic foot
Mg/L × 1000 = Mg /cubic meter
Mg/cubic foot × 35.314 = Mg/cubic meter
Mg/cubic meter × 0.2832 = Mg/cubic foot
CONVERSION TABLE FOR GASES AND VAPORSa (Milligrams per liter to parts per million, and vice versa;25°C and 760 mm Hg barometric pressure)
Molecular Weight
1 mg/liter ppm
1 ppm mg/liter
Molecular Weight
1 mg/liter ppm
1 ppm mg/liter
Molecular Weight
1 mg/liter ppm
1 ppm mg/liter
1
24,450
0.0000409
39
627
0.001595
77
318
0.00315
2
12,230
0.0000818
40
611
0.001636
78
313
0.00319
3
8,150
0.0001227
41
596
0.001677
79
309
0.00323
4
6,113
0.0001636
42
582
0.001718
80
306
0.00327
5
4,890
0.0002045
43
569
0.001759
81
302
0.00331
6
4,075
0.0002454
44
556
0.001800
82
298
0.00335
7
3,493
0.0002863
45
543
0.001840
83
295
0.00339
8
3,056
0.000327
46
532
0.001881
84
291
0.00344
9
2,717
0.000368
47
520
0.001922
85
288
0.00348
10
2,445
0.000409
48
509
0.001963
86
284
0.00352
11
2,223
0.000450
49
499
0.002004
87
281
0.00356
12
2,038
0.000491
50
489
0.002045
88
278
0.00360
13
1,881
0.000532
51
479
0.002086
89
275
0.00364
14
1,746
0.000573
52
470
0.002127
90
272
0.00368
15
1,630
0.000614
53
461
0.002168
91
269
0.00372
16
1,528
0.000654
54
453
0.002209
92
266
0.00376
17
1,438
0.000695
55
445
0.002250
93
263
0.00380
18
1,358
0.000736
56
437
0.002290
94
260
0.00384
19
1,287
0.000777
57
429
0.002331
95
257
0.00389
20
1,223
0.000818
58
422
0.002372
96
255
0.00393
21
1,164
0.000859
59
414
0.002413
97
252
0.00397
22
1,111
0.000900
60
408
0.002554
98
249.5
0.00401
23
1,063
0.000941
61
401
0.002495
99
247.0
0.00405
24
1,019
0.000982
62
394
0.00254
100
244.5
0.00409
25
978
0.001022
63
388
0.00258
101
242.1
0.00413
26
940
0.001063
64
382
0.00262
102
239.7
0.00417
27
906
0.001104
65
376
0.00266
103
237.4
0.00421
28
873
0.001145
66
370
0.00270
104
235.1
0.00425
29
843
0.001186
67
365
0.00274
105
232.9
0.00429
30
815
0.001227
68
360
0.00278
106
230.7
0.00434
31
789
0.001268
69
354
0.00282
107
228.5
0.00438
32
764
0.001309
70
349
0.00286
108
226.4
0.00442
33
741
0.001350
71
344
0.00290
109
224.3
0.00446
34
719
0.001391
72
340
0.00294
110
222.3
0.00450
35
699
0.001432
73
335
0.00299
111
220.3
0.00454
36
679
0.001472
74
330
0.00303
112
218.3
0.00458
37
661
0.001513
75
326
0.00307
113
216.4
0.00462
38
643
0.001554
76
322
0.00311
114
214.5
0.00466
115
212.6
0.00470
153
159.8
0.00626
191
128.0
0.00781
116
210.8
0.00474
154
158.8
0.00630
192
127.3
0.00785
117
209.0
0.00479
155
157.7
0.00634
193
126.7
0.00789
118
207.2
0.00483
156
156.7
0.00638
194
126.0
0.00793
119
205.5
0.00487
157
155.7
0.00642
195
125.4
0.00798
120
203.8
0.00491
158
154.7
0.00646
196
124.7
0.00802
121
202.1
0.00495
159
153.7
0.00650
197
124.1
0.00806
122
200.4
0.00499
160
152.8
0.00654
198
123.5
0.00810
123
198.8
0.00503
161
151.9
0.00658
199
122.9
0.00814
124
197.2
0.00507
162
150.9
0.00663
200
122.3
0.00818
125
195.6
0.00511
163
150.0
0.00667
201
121.6
0.00822
126
194.0
0.00515
164
149.1
0.00671
202
121.0
0.00826
127
192.5
0.00519
165
148.2
0.00675
203
120.4
0.00830
128
191.0
0.00524
166
147.3
0.00679
204
119.9
0.00834
129
189.5
0.00528
167
146.4
0.00683
205
119.3
0.00838
130
188.1
0.00532
168
145.5
0.00687
206
118.7
0.00843
131
186.6
0.00536
169
144.7
0.00691
207
118.1
0.00847
132
185.2
0.00540
170
143.8
0.00695
208
117.5
0.00851
133
183.8
0.00544
171
143.0
0.00699
209
117.0
0.00855
134
182.5
0.00548
172
142.2
0.00703
210
116.4
0.00859
135
181.1
0.00552
173
141.3
0.00708
211
115.9
0.00863
136
179.8
0.00556
174
140.5
0.00712
212
115.3
0.00867
137
178.5
0.00560
175
139.7
0.00716
213
114.8
0.00871
138
177.2
0.00564
176
138.9
0.00720
214
114.3
0.00875
139
175.9
0.00569
177
138.1
0.00724
215
113.7
0.00879
140
174.6
0.00573
178
137.4
0.00728
216
113.2
0.00883
141
173.4
0.00577
179
136.6
0.00732
217
112.7
0.00888
142
172.2
0.00581
180
135.8
0.00736
218
112.2
0.00892
143
171.0
0.00585
181
135.1
0.00740
219
111.6
0.00896
144
169.8
0.00589
182
134.3
0.00744
220
111.1
0.00900
145
168.6
0.00593
183
133.6
0.00748
221
110.6
0.00904
146
167.5
0.00597
184
132.9
0.00753
222
110.1
0.00908
147
166.3
0.00601
185
132.2
0.00757
223
109.6
0.00912
148
165.2
0.00605
186
131.5
0.00761
224
109.2
0.00916
149
164.1
0.00609
187
130.7
0.00765
225
108.7
0.00920
150
163.0
0.00613
188
130.1
0.00769
226
108.2
0.00924
151
161.9
0.00618
189
129.4
0.00773
227
107.7
0.00928
152
160.9
0.00622
190
128.7
0.00777
228
107.2
0.00933
229
106.8
0.00937
253
96.6
0.01035
277
88.3
0.01133
230
106.3
0.00941
254
96.3
0.01039
278
87.9
0.01137
231
105.8
0.00945
255
95.9
0.01043
279
87.6
0.01141
232
105.4
0.00949
256
95.5
0.01047
280
87.3
0.01145
233
104.9
0.00953
257
95.1
0.01051
281
87.0
0.01149
234
104.5
0.00957
258
94.8
0.01055
282
86.7
0.01153
235
104.0
0.00961
259
94.4
0.01059
283
86.4
0.01157
236
103.6
0.00965
260
94.0
0.01063
284
86.1
0.01162
237
103.2
0.00969
261
93.7
0.01067
285
85.8
0.01166
238
102.7
0.00973
262
93.3
0.01072
286
85.5
0.01170
239
102.3
0.00978
263
93.0
0.01076
287
85.2
0.01174
240
101.9
0.00982
264
92.6
0.01080
288
84.9
0.01178
241
101.5
0.00986
265
92.3
0.01084
289
84.6
0.01182
242
101.0
0.00990
266
91.9
0.01088
290
84.3
0.01186
243
100.6
0.00994
267
91.6
0.01092
291
84.0
0.01190
244
100.2
0.00998
268
91.2
0.01096
292
83.7
0.01194
245
99.8
0.01002
269
90.9
0.01100
293
83.4
0.01198
246
99.4
0.01006
270
90.6
0.01104
294
83.2
0.01202
247
99.0
0.01010
271
90.2
0.01108
295
82.9
0.01207
248
98.6
0.01014
272
89.9
0.01112
296
82.6
0.01211
249
98.2
0.01018
273
89.6
0.01117
297
82.3
0.01215
250
97.8
0.01022
274
89.2
0.01121
298
82.0
0.01219
251
97.4
0.01027
275
88.9
0.01125
299
81.8
0.01223
252
97.0
0.01031
276
88.6
0.01129
300
81.5
0.01227
a A. C. Fieldner, S. H. Katz, and S. P. Kinney, “Gas Masks for Gases Met in Fighting Fires,” U.S.
Bureau of Mines, Technical Paper No. 248, 1921.
Part IIICHEMICAL EXPOSURE EVALUATION
BIOLOGICAL MONITORING OF EXPOSURE TO INDUSTRIAL CHEMICALS
NANCY B. HOPF, PH.D. AND SILVIA FUSTINONI, PH.D.
1 INTRODUCTION
Occupational health experts began to monitor workers' chemical exposures by measuring the internal dose of a chemical of interest, which gave a more reliable estimate of total exposures such as lead concentrations in urine (1–3). Other human biomonitoring methods sought to measure a chemical's biotransformations in the body, its metabolites. For instance, urinary sulfate was determined in benzene‐exposed workers (4). Periodically monitoring industry workers who were exposed to especially benzene was recommended, and the aim was to remove workers from the site before symptoms of acute poisoning (such as anemia) appeared.
Quantifying the parent chemical compound or its metabolites – or biomarkers of exposure – in urine and blood is still a widely used biomonitoring approach. The metabolites can, in some instances, be a better measure of toxic exposure than the presence of the compound itself (e.g. quantifying urinary 2,5‐hexandione, the toxic metabolite, to determine hexane exposure). Human biomonitoring uses techniques of analytical chemistry to detect the presence of specific chemicals in human bodily fluids and tissues. This kind of biomonitoring relies on the sensitivity of the chemical assays and instruments, which since the 1960s have become able to measure ever‐smaller amounts of specific substances (2). For example, these techniques can detect one drop of ink in one of the largest tanker trucks used to haul gasoline, which is about one part per billion. Improvements in laboratory technology are driving the popularity of human biomonitoring, as specialists can now detect extremely low levels of multiple markers using a relatively small sample. High precision analytical instruments are used to specifically quantify chemicals or their metabolized residues such as inductively coupled plasma mass spectrometry, gas, and liquid chromatography coupled with single or triple quadrupole mass spectrometry, even in the presence of isotopically labeled analogs as internal standards to further improve assay's performance.
Biomarkers that measure bodily alteration such as changes in blood composition to assess a specific disease are known as biomarkers of effect. For instance, changes in blood cell composition profiles were used in order to protect hospital workers in radium units from radioactive exposures in the 1920s. Blood cell changes were known to precede radiation‐induced diseases such as aplastic anemia. Back then, the British X‐ray and Radium Protection Committee recommended that radium units in hospitals adopt in‐house blood monitoring programs to reduce the occurrence of aplastic anemia among exposed workers. This biomonitoring approach was later abandoned for a far easier radiation exposure‐monitoring program where workers wear dosimeters attached to their clothing. Radiation‐induced damage in individuals was later measured using genetic testing or the determination of condensed chromosomes – or karyotyping – by way of microscopy. Extensive data on chromosomal aberrations (CAs) in response to ionizing radiation have been provided from studies in survivors of the atomic bombings at Hiroshima and Nagasaki (5). This chromosome aberration method was later used to monitor uranium miners and workers in the nuclear industry exposed to radiation (6).
Although a biomarker of effect may be related to exposure to a specific chemical, it is more closely related to the occurrence of an adverse health effect (7). Damage to genetic material (chromosomes or DNA) or other molecular alterations (e.g. adducts) that are chemically induced by exposure are used to survey workers at risk. For instance, occupational exposure to the sterilizing agent ethylene oxide can be monitored with a detectable chemical modification of the hemoglobin molecules in their blood namely the N‐(2‐hydroxyethyl)valine (HEV) hemoglobin adduct. Another example is lead's ability to induce anemia by inhibition of heme synthesis. Lead inhibits delta‐Aminolevulinate dehydratase (ALAD), the second enzyme in the heme biosynthesis pathway. ALAD is a zinc metalloenzyme, and its inhibition by lead substitution for zinc is one of the most sensitive indicators of blood‐lead accumulation, a measure of recent lead exposure (8). Cytogenetic alterations in cultured peripheral blood lymphocytes, such as CAs and sister chromatid exchanges (SCEs), are used as biomarkers of effects to assess risk from exposures to carcinogens (9). Micronuclei (MN) present in cultured human cells are a measure of genotoxic exposure, and this biomarker of effect is predictive for cancer (10, 11). It is important to note that determining the actual biological damage might potentially be more informative than a simple exposure level but also note that individuals will vary in their susceptibility to such damage.
Biomarkers of exposure generally give a picture of a worker's current exposure while biomarkers of effect reflect chronic exposures. For instance, lead concentration in blood is a measure of current exposure while lead in bone is a reflection of cumulative exposures (12). Exposure biomarkers fluctuate with an individual's exposure. Exposure biomarkers reflect both absorption and the compound's apparent elimination half‐life in the body. It is, therefore, pertinent to collect the blood or urine sample at maximum exposure to avoid underestimating the body burden. This is not the case for biomarkers of effect where the sampling time is generally not critical. Exceptions to this general overview exist such as carboxyhemoglobin and methemoglobin.
Exposure biomarkers are used to integrate skin exposure, as measurements of airborne contaminants in the workplace fail to register other routes than inhalation exposure. Skin patches have been used to monitor potential skin exposure but this method does not take into account skin absorption. A biomarker of exposure can assess the bioavailability of the chemical and consequently, the body burden can be determined. Biomonitoring is also used to assess the efficiency of personal protective equipment (PPE). For example, workers wearing PPE to protect themselves from agents that are readily absorbed through the skin might become exposed because of a nonvisible tear in a glove. This breach in protection can only be monitored through biomarkers of exposure.
Human biological monitoring is a powerful tool for assessing human systemic exposure to hazardous substances by inhalation, ingestion, and absorption through the skin. Regular monitoring helps to reassure workers their exposure continues to be well controlled (13). Irreversible biochemical and functional changes are consequently not recommended as biomarkers for exposure monitoring because abnormal values already indicate a health injury that is supposed to be prevented by the monitoring.
At work, reducing exposure to toxic chemicals and their health effects can be implemented with biological monitoring programs and by comparing results to biological limit values (BLVs). The initiative in promulgating BLVs for biomarkers started in the 1970s. In the US, this movement was initiated by the organization for professional industrial hygienists; the American Conference for Governmental Industrial Hygiene (ACGIH), and in Europe, by the German Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the workplace (MAK commission) of the German Research Association (DFG or Deutsche Forschung Gemeinschaft). Since then, both ACGIH and DFG have published their yearly list of BLVs where BLVs are updated and/or new ones added. EU and its Scientific Committee on Occupational Limit values (SCOEL) continued this initiative. In addition, several countries have their own commissions and set country‐specific biological exposure limit values such as France, Finland, and Japan.
Expansion of biomonitoring beyond occupational health to the population at large started in the mid‐1920s with the health hazards of tetraethyl lead (gasoline additive). Studies showed that blood lead levels measured in healthy babies were above the industry standard, and individuals living in urban areas had higher blood lead concentrations than residents of rural areas (14). This knowledge eventually led environmental protection agency (EPA) to ban tetraethyl lead in automotive fuel. Biological monitoring strategies for population‐based studies differ from occupational studies. The exposure source is generally known in the occupational but not in the general population setting. Exposures are during work hours while the exposure time is often unknown for nonoccupationally exposed individuals. Work exposures are generally greater during fixed times while the general population might be exposed to low concentrations over longer periods. This chapter will only include occupational biological monitoring strategies.
This chapter will discuss biomarkers suitable for monitoring of occupational exposures, sampling strategy, how policy makers assess and manage the risk of exposure to chemicals at the workplace. This chapter will also touch upon the ethical issues associated with biomonitoring such as disclosure of data to whom, and with what kind of medical consultation. In addition, different approaches for setting biological monitoring limits will be described.
2 OCCUPATIONAL EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
The ultimate objective of an occupational exposure assessment is to evaluate the health risk for workers and to implement control measures if the risk is considered unacceptable. Exposure assessment to airborne pollutants is usually performed by measuring the concentration of the studied contaminant preferably in the persons' breathing zone (personal air sampling) but sometimes area air samples are collected.
Sampling strategies depend on the purpose such as compliance (mandated sampling, comparing to existing occupational exposure limits [OELs]) or extensive exposure assessment (characterize the exposure intensity and frequency variability, control measure efficiency) of more or less all workers. Occupational hygiene sampling strategies include sampling workers with the potential for highest exposures, random sampling of a homogenous exposure groups, or selection of workers for periodic exposure monitoring programs. In the occupational environment, strategies for air sampling have been well defined and described in textbooks (15, 16), publications, and standards.
Occupational hygiene assesses workplace exposure by measuring the contaminants in the air or on the surfaces (including skin), and whenever possible, biological monitoring.
2.1 Exposure Monitoring
2.1.1 Air Sampling
The air sampling strategy includes the compounds of interest (what to sample), their OELs, their associated health effects if workers have excessive exposure to the agents, and where and when the compounds are used in the process. Consequently, the key operations and activities are identified. Workers that have the greatest potential for exposure to the agents are targeted and personal air sampling for the identified compounds are collected. Alternatively, stationary samples are used to identify the sources of potential exposures.
Concerns associated with collecting air samples are to take a representative sample of the study population for exposure measurements, account for all possible routes of exposure, select the appropriate sampling methods, and characterize correct exposure times. It is important to understand the basic relationship between factors influencing exposures, and the exposure distribution (often lognormal distribution). This will help understand exposure variability, especially, between‐ and within‐worker variability, exposure correlation in time and space (e.g. time series and spatial analysis), and the methods inherent uncertainties.
Occupational hygienists have to select the appropriate air sampling method for the compounds of interest. Sampling for all agents is impractical. Different media might be required for each agent. It is not convenient for a worker to wear several sampling pumps at the same time. Moreover, it could be that sampling and analytical methods do not exist for the compound of interest. Furthermore, the substance of interest might not be airborne. All these factors need to be considered in the field‐sampling plan.
2.1.2 Surface Sampling
Skin exposure is a topic that has been increasingly discussed this last decade since this route of entry is quite relevant for many chemicals. The exposure assessment for the skin route of entry is more challenging than with airborne contaminants. In addition, as air concentrations become lower the relative importance of skin exposure increases.
Skin exposures to chemicals have been evaluated using different methods (17–20). Surface sampling methods include wipe sampling, patch test, hand washing, and the tape stripping method.
Wipe tests consist of wiping a determined surface area with a material (fabrics, filters, etc.). The results are reported as mass of contaminant (in mg or μg) per square centimeter of the treated/body surface. For example, the amount of nicotine contaminating tobacco harvesters' hands at the end of shift were determined with wipe sampling (21).
Patch tests are similar to the surface sampling except they are attached to worker's skin (22). Patches are sampling mediums (fabrics, filters, etc.) placed on different parts of the worker's body where contact with the concerned pollutant is expected. For example, chromic acid skin exposures were measured using patches attached to the hands inside the PPE among electroplaters (23) or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) were measured using patches applied to different parts of the body in asphalt workers (24).
Hand washing is a technique applied to assess contamination on hands. It consists of pouring a certain amount of solvent (water or other suitable medium) on the contaminated hands while the worker is rubbing them. The hand wash is collected in a basin underneath. This technique was applied to assess exposure to pesticides in vineyard agricultural workers after re‐entry operations (maintenance and cleaning) (25).
The tape stripping method aims to determine the amount of a compound absorbed via skin by quantifying the amount of the compound in the outer layer of the skin (stratum corneum). The upper layers of the stratum corneum (nonliving keratinized layers) are removed by adhesive tapes successively. The total amount of compound absorbed is calculated by adding the compound amount extracted from the cells attached to the adhesive strips sampled from each layer of epidermis. The tape stripping method has been used to assess skin exposures among chimney sweepers to PAHs (26), among workers employed in the corticosteroid manufacturing industry to budesonide (27), and among jet‐fuel exposed workers to naphthalene (28).
No standard exists for occupational skin exposures. Therefore, it is the company or the organization that determines its own reference values for the surface wipes (skin or other surfaces), whole‐body clothing, patch, hand wash, or tape stripping methods used. The company needs to decide if the surface is considered “clean” or “contaminated” (29–31). There is no recommended strategy to derive reference values for these sampling methods.
2.1.3 Advantages and Limitations of Environmental Monitoring
Air sampling has several advantages over biomonitoring. There are many more established OELs for airborne contaminants than biomonitoring limit values. Air monitoring can measure peak exposures and very short exposure periods using direct‐reading instruments. Peak exposure measurements are not possible with biological monitoring due to pharmacokinetics and technical considerations.
From a legal point of view, the air quality at the workplace is a matter of the employer's responsibility who has to provide a safe occupational environment for the workers. Air sampling is not considered personal while a biological sample is, even if it is related to the air quality at the workplace. This is because the measured exposure quantity is influenced by personal characteristics and worker's behavior. This includes the way the worker operates and protects himself or herself. Biomonitoring might, therefore, be regulated differently than air monitoring depending on the specific country's legislation.
The main limitation of the air sampling is that it only allows the assessment of exposure through inhalation and ignores other routes of entry. This may seriously affect the risk assessment as this is often based on the total dose reaching the target organs. Air monitoring does not take into account the individual respiratory flow rates such as heavy lifting that directly influence the uptake of an airborne compound. Another limitation may be the sampling method: for reactive compounds, adsorption on a solid phase is often impossible and the impractical impingers (or bubblers) remain the only solution (32). Personal air measurements have in general more measurement error than biological measures (33). Although it is probably more feasible and cost‐effective to minimize the bias in exposure‐response associations by collecting additional airborne measurements than biological measurements.
Air measurements and biological monitoring are two methods of exposure assessment that are complementary. The choice of using air measurements or biomonitoring depends on the sampling purpose. In occupational hygiene practice, it is useful to start with optimizing working conditions using air sampling before biomonitoring. Another complimentary use of these methods is once biomonitoring programs are in place but the occupational hygienist running the program discovers that workers have elevated biomarker values than expected, then the occupational hygienist uses air monitoring to find the sources. Therefore, biomonitoring has an added value to air measurements where exposure is well managed and the occupational hygienist can use biomonitoring as the ultimate “stress test” to see if everything is placed or check for expected or unexpected contributions from skin absorption, effectiveness of PPE, and exposures after incidents/spills.
2.2 Biological Monitoring Approach
2.2.1 From Exposure to Disease
The value of biological monitoring is that it takes into account all routes of chemical exposure, along with personal characteristics. Biological monitoring of exposure can be used to target intervention and consequently, prevent the progression from exposure to disease because it is in an early step in the continuum of external exposure to health surveillance and disease (Figure 1).
FIGURE 1 Continuum of events between exposure and disease, and use of biomarkers in risk assessment.
Source: Adapted from Manini et al. (34); NRC (35); Albertini et al. (36).
As proposed by Lauwerys and Bernard in 1985 (37), biological monitoring of exposure to an industrial chemical may be defined as the evaluation of the internal dose (internal exposure) by a biological method with the view of assessing the associated health risk. Depending on the biological parameter selected and on the time of sampling, internal dose may mean the amount of chemical recently absorbed, the amount stored in one or several compartments of the organism, or, under ideal conditions, the amount bound to the sites of action. The internal dose estimation has usually relied on two categories of tests: those based on the determination of the chemical and/or its metabolites in various biological media (e.g. blood, urine, and alveolar air) and those based on the quantification of a no adverse biological effect, the intensity of which is related to the internal dose.
The scope of biomarkers has been greatly expanded during the past decades. This is primarily because of the great advances made in both analytical chemistry and molecular biology techniques. The increased biomarker knowledge has also played a significant role, particularly in the area of cancer biomarkers and their potential for predicting health risk in individuals and populations (38–44). For practical applications, biomarkers are generally classified into three categories: biomarkers of exposure, biomarkers of early biological effects, and biomarkers of susceptibility (45–48).
2.2.2 Biomarkers of Exposure
Historically, biomarkers of exposure indicators are the first ones described and still represent the majority of biological parameters validated and used in the assessment of occupational exposure. Generally, biomarkers of exposure give an indication of the compound circulating in the body and/or the amount excreted. Consequently, this is an evaluation of intake or uptake as well as an indication of the body burden. The compound can be the chemical itself (parent compound), some biotransformation products (e.g. metabolites), or some reaction products with macromolecules measured in accessible biological fluids. These exposure biomarkers may reflect the internal dose in various ways. They can be expressed as the quantity of a product:
Recently absorbed (solvents in the blood, in exhaled air, etc.)
Absorbed over a few months (metals in the blood or in hair)
Stored in organs and tissues (
dichlorodiphenyltrichloroethane
(
DDT
) and
polychlorinated biphenyls
(
PCBs
) in particular)
Present on the active site (carboxyhemoglobin, adducts).
2.2.2.1 BIOMARKERS OF INTERNAL DOSE Biological monitoring of occupational exposure to chemicals started in the early 1950s with survey programs for exposure to metals (lead and mercury principally) measuring these metals in blood or in urine. Biomonitoring to organic compounds (organic solvents) came later and was mainly the quantification of urinary metabolites of the solvents.
The validation of these biomarkers of internal dose was the quantitative relationship between biological and air monitoring to a particular chemical. These biological indicators were often validated using controlled experiments with volunteers in an exposure chamber by varying the magnitude of exposure seeking to obtain an external–internal relationship for the chemical of interest. Toxicokinetics of the chemicals is often explored in these controlled human experiments. The better the correlation between internal amount and external amount, the more powerful the biomarker. This approach is still used (49, 50). Validations are also performed by simultaneously assessing biomarkers and personal airborne exposure among occupationally exposed subjects. For example, the correlation between personal air exposures to styrene and styrene‐(7,8)‐oxide and several urinary biomarkers were investigated among workers. Urinary biomarkers included styrene, mandelic acid, phenylglyoxylic acid, phenylglycine, 4‐vinylphenol, the mercapturic acids (S,R)‐N‐acetyl‐S‐(1‐phenyl‐2‐hydroxyethyl)‐L‐cysteine, and (R,R)‐ and (S,R)‐N‐acetyl‐S‐(2‐phenyl‐2‐hydroxyethyl)‐L‐cysteine, and styrene‐(7,8)‐oxide hemoglobin and albumin adducts). The adopted multiple sampling design allowed for a reduced within subject variability, and very good correlations were obtained between several urinary biomarkers and measured personal styrene air exposures (51, 52).
