Interpreting Levels of Exposures To Chemical Agents

Abstract

The past half‐century has witnessed great advances in the characterization of exposures to toxic chemicals in the workplace. With the development of robust personal monitors, it is now a relatively simple matter to measure the daily air levels among various workers in an observational group (a group of workers sharing observable factors such as job, location, department, etc.). Unfortunately, the interpretation of levels of exposure has not achieved the same degree of sophistication. In fact, decisions still tend to rely upon one‐to‐one comparisons of the highest measured air concentration with occupational exposure limits (OELs), much as they did 50 years ago (see, for example, Refs. 10–14). If the highest air concentration is less than the OEL, then exposure is acceptable (in compliance) and vice versa. While such interpretations would be reasonable if occupational exposures were relatively constant, they seem remarkably naïve when considered in light of daily exposure levels which vary between 10 and 4000 fold. Because exposures must be evaluated in the face of great variability within and between workers in observational groups, statistical methods are central to proper assessment procedures. Likewise, since monitoring is motivated by, and must ultimately relate to, exposure limits, the impact of exposure variability on the interpretation of OELs is important. The purpose of this chapter is to integrate statistical methods and the philosophical bases for exposure limits within a conceptual framework for interpreting exposure data. The methods will be illustrated with the four sets of exposure data depicted in graphical form. The sources and characteristics of these measurements are summarized and all data are listed in Appendix A for those who wish to work through the various examples in the text.

Relative Pesticide and Exposure Route Contribution to Aggregate and Cumulative Dose in Young Farmworker Children

“…Although child-oriented simulations were not completed, whereby each child’s simulations would be only calculated based upon measurements taken from their own home, we did estimate the within- and between-child variability for the simulations to understand the role of environmental concentrations and micro-level activity patterns in the overall variability of this population. We used log-transformed values to estimate within-child and between-child variance according to Rappaport [ 46 ]. Dose and urine concentrations were tested for differences between age groups ( i.e.…”

Monte Carlo Simulation to Reconstruct Formaldehyde Exposure Levels from Summary Parameters Reported in the Literature

“…This assumption is central in our methodology because it is used in the methods of estimation of GM and GSD and during the simulation process. It is now well established that airborne concentrations of contaminants in the workplace tend to follow, at least approximately, a lognormal distribution, and most methods of interpretation of exposure levels rely heavily on this assumption (Mulhausen and Diamano, 1998;Rappaport, 2000). We believe there was little risk of important departure from the assumption of lognormality in most of our data since each set of measurements came from the same occupational setting and was further characterized by process, time period and job/zone.…”

“…Equations 1-4 are based on the theoretical correspondence between the different parameters characterizing the lognormal distribution (Rappaport, 2000). Equation 5 is based on the fact that the expected values of the maximum and minimum of a sample from a normal distribution are symmetrical around the mean of the distribution (Zwillinger and Kokoska, 2000).…”

AltrexChimie, a Web Application for the Management and the Interpretation of Occupational Exposure Measurements to Chemical Substances

“…The exposure assessment diagnostic in AltrexChimie relies on the assumption that results follow a lognormal distribution [5,17,18], that is, the logarithm of the values is normally distributed. Such distribution results from the multiplicative product of many independent positive random variables and it characterizes many observed natural and non-natural phenomena.…”