Exposure to Total and Respirable Minerals in an Abrasive Manufacturing Facility

Granados-Correa, F.; García‐Sosa, I.; Iturbe-García, José Luis

doi:10.1202/0002-8894(1996)057<0753:ettarm>2.0.co;2

Cited by 2 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Ten percent of the time the ratio was 3.8. Although a few investigations have suggested that area measurement can be higher than personal measurements (Akbar-Khanzadeh 1995;Granados-Correa et al 1996), most studies support the contention in the MAK document that personal measurements are higher than area measurements. Again, no assessment was made of the eect of area sampling on the ®ndings used by the MAK Commission for standard-setting.…”

Section: Use Of Area Sampling Datasupporting

confidence: 53%

A critical evaluation of the scientific basis of the MAK Commission's new general threshold limit values for dust

McLaughlin

Lipworth

Marano³

et al. 2001

Int Arch Occup Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1997, the German Commission for the Investigation of Health Hazards of Chemical Compounds in the Work Area set a new MAK value ("Maximale Arbeitsplatz-Konzentration") governing worker exposures to general airborne dust. The new values limit worker dust exposures to concentrations not exceeding 1.5 mg/m3 for respirable dust and 4 mg/m3 for inhalable dust, and are substantially lower than corresponding standards in other western industrialized nations. The purpose of this document is to critically review the science behind the MAK Commission's new threshold limit value standards. The Commission relied heavily upon a re-analysis of data from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) Chronic Bronchitis study (1965-1977). We have reservations about the scientific merit of the DFG study and the validity of data used as the basis for establishing a new MAK value for dust. In particular: (1) Assessing the potential role of inert dust in the development of chronic bronchitis in worker cohorts with extremely high cigarette smoking prevalences is scientifically implausible. (2) It is unlikely that the dust in the industries studied, including steel works, foundries and cement works, was in fact "inert", and any effects of the dust on chronic bronchitis rates may have been increased by the presence of free crystalline silica and other toxic agents. (3) The study made use of area- rather than personal-exposure monitoring, thereby correlating the prevalence of chronic bronchitis with lower dust exposure levels than actually existed and significantly overstating the health effects of the dust exposures. (4) Inappropriate statistical methods were used to estimate threshold limit values. Results of three additional epidemiological studies are cited as providing evidence of chronic lung effects due to insoluble dust exposure. All three studies suffer from extremely poor documentation of the study methodology, particularly regarding lung function testing, and they provide little evidence that exposure to insoluble non-fibrogenic dusts leads to chronic lung obstruction. In summary, it is our opinion that the studies evaluated by the MAK Commission and the methods used do not provide the scientific basis to support the lower threshold limit values for dust. We recommend that an appropriate prospective morbidity study be conducted to address the concerns detailed in this critical examination.

show abstract

Section: Use Of Area Sampling Datasupporting

confidence: 53%

A critical evaluation of the scientific basis of the MAK Commission's new general threshold limit values for dust

McLaughlin

Lipworth

Marano³

et al. 2001

Int Arch Occup Environ Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to Granados-Correa et al (1996), area monitoring in an abrasive production plant detected concentrations of 5.0±7.5 and 11.6±15.3 mg/m 3 for respirable and inhalable particulates, respectively. The data suggest that the R/I ratio will distribute in a range of 33±65%.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…From occupational health viewpoints it is often recommended that respirable particulate concentrations be measured separately from inhalable particulate levels, and this has been a common practice in many cases (e.g., Morris et al 1991;Zuskin et al 1992;Bullock and Laird 1994;HolmstroÈ m et al 1995;Granados-Correa et al 1996;KuÈ pper et al 1996). It is not always possible, however, to measure both (Guillemin et al 1992;Holanda et al 1995) and, often, only inhalable particulate levels are available, depending on the study conditions (Nielsen et al 1993;Massin et al 1995;Dahlqvist et al 1996;Rix and Lynge 1996;Toren et al 1996).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%