Control banding (CB) strategies offer simplified processes for controlling worker exposures in the absence of firm toxicological and exposure information. The nanotechnology industry is an excellent candidate for applying such strategies with overwhelming uncertainties of work-related health risks posed by nanomaterials. A recent survey shows that a majority of nanomaterial producers are not performing a basic risk assessment of their product in use. The CB Nanotool, used internationally, was developed to conduct qualitative risk assessments to control nanoparticle exposures. Nanotoxicology experts have requested standardization of toxicological parameters to ensure better utility and consistency of research. Such standardization would fit well in the CB Nanotool's severity and probability risk matrix, therefore enhancing the protection of nanotechnology industry workers. This article further evaluates the CB Nanotool for structure, weighting of risk factors, and utility for exposure mitigation, and suggests improvements for the CB Nanotool and the research needed to bolster its effectiveness.
Control Banding (CB) strategies offer simplified solutions for controlling worker exposures to constituents often encountered in the workplace. The original CB model was developed within the pharmaceutical industry; however, the modern movement involves models developed for non-experts to input hazard and exposure potential information for bulk chemical processes, receiving control advice as a result. The CB approach utilizes these models for the dissemination of qualitative and semi-quantitative risk assessment tools being developed to complement the traditional industrial hygiene model of air sampling and analysis. It is being applied and tested in small and medium size enterprises (SMEs) within developed countries and industrially developing countries; however, large enterprises (LEs) have also incorporated these strategies within chemical safety programs. Existing research of the components of the most available CB model, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials, has shown that exposure bands do not always provide adequate margins of safety, that there is a high rate of under-control errors, that it works better with dusts than with vapors, that there is an inherent inaccuracy in estimating variability, and that when taken together the outcomes of this model may lead to potentially inappropriate workplace confidence in chemical exposure reduction in some operations. Alternatively, large-scale comparisons of industry exposure data to this CB model's outcomes have indicated more promising results with a high correlation seen internationally. With the accuracy of the toxicological ratings and hazard band classification currently in question, their proper reevaluation will be of great benefit to the reliability of existing and future CB models. The need for a more complete analysis of CB model components and, most importantly, a more comprehensive prospective research process remains and will be important in understanding implications of the model's overall effectiveness. Since the CB approach is now being used worldwide with an even broader implementation in progress, further research toward understanding its strengths and weaknesses will assist in its further refinement and confidence in its ongoing utility.
Occupational exposure limits (OELs) serve as health-based benchmarks against which measured or estimated workplace exposures can be compared. In the years since the introduction of OELs to public health practice, both developed and developing countries have established processes for deriving, setting, and using OELs to protect workers exposed to hazardous chemicals. These processes vary widely, however, and have thus resulted in a confusing international landscape for identifying and applying such limits in workplaces. The occupational hygienist will encounter significant overlap in coverage among organizations for many chemicals, while other important chemicals have OELs developed by few, if any, organizations. Where multiple organizations have published an OEL, the derived value often varies considerably—reflecting differences in both risk policy and risk assessment methodology as well as access to available pertinent data. This paper explores the underlying reasons for variability in OELs, and recommends the harmonization of risk-based methods used by OEL-deriving organizations. A framework is also proposed for the identification and systematic evaluation of OEL resources, which occupational hygienists can use to support risk characterization and risk management decisions in situations where multiple potentially relevant OELs exist.
This article describes a comparison of sampling results from air monitoring conducted using total dust and inhalable dust sampling methodologies for the evaluation of wood dust exposures in a carpenter shop. While it is recognized that the total dust sampling method underestimates the true total inhalable aerosol, and it is desirable to select a sampling method for wood dust that accurately measures inhalable particulate, the results presented in this article indicate that the currently available inhalable dust sampling method may not be reliable for the evaluation ofwood dust exposures, particularly at low concentrations. Traditional personal total dust sampling was performed in accordance with National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Method 0500, and side-by-side comparison sampling was performed with SKCO brand inhalable particulate mass (IPM) samplers in accordance with American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists criteria. A total of 25 sample pairs (1 7 personal, and 8 area) were collected utilizing both the total dust and IPM sampling methodologies. The results from this study, and data from two unpublished poster presentations, indicate that the IPM/total dust ratio for wood dust is generally in the range of 2 to 4 at relatively high wood dust concentrations (>0.5 mg/m3). However, when total dust concentrations were below 0.5 mg/m3, the corresponding inhalable ratio for personal samples was erratic (range of 2.1 to 71). Using only IPM sampling data in this concentration range could be misleading and may lead to substantial and unnecessary costs to control wood dust. Unpublished sampling data from industry wood dust monitoring have also shown similar results. Particulates larger than 100 p m in diameter were projected into the IPM sampler, causing an overestimate of the amount ofwood dust particulate that was actually inhalable. The IPM method needs further research and development before it can be accurately applied in field industrial hygiene evaluations for wood dust, particularly at low concentrations. MARTIN, J.R.; Zauc, D.M.: COM-PARISON OF TOTAL b S T / I N W E DUST SAMPUNG MWDS KX THE EVALUATION OF T Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH@) Threshold Limit Value(TLV@) booklet refers to the TLV Committee's intent to replace all total particulate TLVs with inhalable, thoracic, or respirable particulate matter TLVs. Side-by-side sampling studies using older total and newer inhalable, thoracic, or respirable sampling techniques are encouraged to be performed, and the results published, to aid in the appropriate replacement of current total particulate TLVs.(') This study was conducted to compare wood dust sampling results in a carpenter shop using total dust and inhalable dust sampling methodologies. The work was conducted during the latter stages of a wood dust control study reported by the authors in a separate publication. (2) The current ACGIH TLV for wood dust is based on studies that utilized the total dust sampling methodology. The existing ACGIH TLV for exposure to hardwood dust...
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) is a Department and Energy (DOE) and National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) research and development (R&D) facility that is operated by the Lawrence Livermore National Security (LLNS) LLC. What makes LLNL unique from a majority of organizations with over 6,000 employees is its primary R&D focus, rather than a traditional production or manufacturing working environment. Most large-scale enterprises worldwide with ORM models within occupational health and safety management systems (OHSMS) are focused on a finite number of uniform activities.LLNL's R&D focus breaks away from traditional systems by consistently performing unique work. Therefore, the creation of new and potentially hazardous operations and related occupational exposures is standard. Perhaps an expected outcome of this large-scale R&D work is a pervasive regulatory oversight.Though based in California, the California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) does not oversee LLNL's activities. Instead, Federal OSHA (FedOSHA) has jurisdiction. In addition, as LLNL is run by LLNS for the DOE, additional contractual requirements are in place to ensure workers performing the tasks that benefit national R&D are well protected. For industrial hygiene (IH), the contract requires the lowest established occupational exposure limit (OEL) for a given chemical, physical, or biological exposure. Therefore, the ACGIH ® Threshold Limit Values (TLVs) often meet this specification and therefore
Control Banding (CB) strategies to prevent work-related illness and injury for 2.5 billion workers without access to health and safety professionals has grown exponentially this last decade. CB originates from the pharmaceutical industry to control active pharmaceutical ingredients without a complete toxicological basis and therefore no occupational exposure limits. CB applications have broadened into chemicals in general - including new emerging risks like nanomaterials and recently into ergonomics and injury prevention. CB is an action-oriented qualitative risk assessment strategy offering solutions and control measures to users through "toolkits". Chemical CB toolkits are user-friendly approaches used to achieve workplace controls in the absence of firm toxicological and quantitative exposure information. The model (technical) validation of these toolkits is well described, however firm operational analyses (implementation aspects) are lacking. Consequentially, it is often not known if toolkit use leads to successful interventions at individual workplaces. This might lead to virtual safe workplaces without knowing if workers are truly protected. Upcoming international strategies from the World Health Organization Collaborating Centers request assistance in developing and evaluating action-oriented procedures for workplace risk assessment and control. It is expected that to fulfill this strategy's goals, CB approaches will continue its important growth in protecting workers.
ObjectivesThis paper presents the framework and protocol design for a construction industry risk management toolbox. The construction industry needs a comprehensive, systematic approach to assess and control occupational risks. These risks span several professional health and safety disciplines, emphasized by multiple international occupational research agenda projects including: falls, electrocution, noise, silica, welding fumes, and musculoskeletal disorders. Yet, the International Social Security Association says, "whereas progress has been made in safety and health, the construction industry is still a high risk sector."MethodsSmall- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) employ about 80% of the world's construction workers. In recent years a strategy for qualitative occupational risk management, known as Control Banding (CB) has gained international attention as a simplified approach for reducing work-related risks. CB groups hazards into stratified risk 'bands', identifying commensurate controls to reduce the level of risk and promote worker health and safety. We review these qualitative solutions-based approaches and identify strengths and weaknesses toward designing a simplified CB 'toolbox' approach for use by SMEs in construction trades.ResultsThis toolbox design proposal includes international input on multidisciplinary approaches for performing a qualitative risk assessment determining a risk 'band' for a given project. Risk bands are used to identify the appropriate level of training to oversee construction work, leading to commensurate and appropriate control methods to perform the work safely.ConclusionThe Construction Toolbox presents a review-generated format to harness multiple solutions-based national programs and publications for controlling construction-related risks with simplified approaches across the occupational safety, health and hygiene professions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.