Silica Exposure on Construction Sites: Results of an Exposure Monitoring Data Compilation Project

Abstract

To expand on the limited size and scope of construction silica exposure studies, a silica monitoring data compilation project was initiated through the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists Construction Committee. Personal silica exposure monitoring data was collected and analyzed from 13 private, research, and regulatory groups. An effort was made to collect as much detail as possible about task, tool, and environmental and control conditions so as much information as possible could be garnered. There were considerable data gaps, particularly with regulatory agency data, that represented over half of the data set. There were 1374 personal quartz samples reported with a geometric mean of 0.13 mg/m(3) and a GSD of 5.9. Descriptive statistics are reported by trade, task, tool, and data source type. Highest exposures were for abrasive blasters, surface and tuckpoint grinders, jackhammers, and rock drills. The sample period was important, with short-term samples (up to 2 hours) having considerably higher levels than midterm (2-6 hours) or longer (over 6 hours) samples. For nearly all exposure variables, a large portion of variable categories were at or over the quartz occupational exposure limit of 0.05 mg/m(3), including 8 of 8 trade, 13 of 16 task, and 12 of 16 tool categories. The respiratory protection commonly used on construction sites is often inadequate for the exposures encountered. The data variability within task and tool was very large, with some very high exposures reported for a broad spectrum of tools. Further understanding of the conditions leading to high exposures will require more detailed documentation of the sample characteristics following database design recommendations or systematic surveys of exposure in this complex industry.

Evaluation of workplace exposure to respirable crystalline silica in Italy

“…[18][19][20] However, the subgroup of workers best characterized in our study, including those engaged in stonework masonry and tunnel construction, can reasonably be considered at high risk for adverse health effects as a result of silica exposure based on their higher mean exposure level (AM50.057, 93% of exposure measurements above the ACGIH limit value). 12,13,18,21 It should also be noted that carpenters and joiners had significant mean RCS exposure levels (AM50.047, 93% of exposure measurements above the ACGIH limit value), comparable with those of miners and quarry workers (AM50.048, 97% of exposure measurements above the ACGIH limit value), likely reflecting an inadequate implementation of preventive measures to control workplace silica dust air concentrations in the Italian construction industry, similar to other economically developed countries. [19][20][21] We estimate that about 30 000 workers are exposed to crystalline silica in the manufacture of non-metallic minerals in Italy (NACE code 26) 12 Similarly, in our study, exposure levels in the manufacture of nonmetallic minerals were found to vary between and within occupations, leading to an overall mean concentration lower than in construction, as well as a smaller percentage of TLV overwhelming values.…”

“…12,13,18,21 It should also be noted that carpenters and joiners had significant mean RCS exposure levels (AM50.047, 93% of exposure measurements above the ACGIH limit value), comparable with those of miners and quarry workers (AM50.048, 97% of exposure measurements above the ACGIH limit value), likely reflecting an inadequate implementation of preventive measures to control workplace silica dust air concentrations in the Italian construction industry, similar to other economically developed countries. [19][20][21] We estimate that about 30 000 workers are exposed to crystalline silica in the manufacture of non-metallic minerals in Italy (NACE code 26) 12 Similarly, in our study, exposure levels in the manufacture of nonmetallic minerals were found to vary between and within occupations, leading to an overall mean concentration lower than in construction, as well as a smaller percentage of TLV overwhelming values. This may be due to the significant decrease of airborne RCS concentrations reported in the ceramic industry over time, 14,22 and to the high variation in whether workers use dry or automated/remotely controlled working methods.…”

Exposure to respirable dust and crystalline silica in bricklaying education at Dutch vocational training centers

“…Measured exposures to respirable dust in this study are moderate (GM ¼ 0.90 mg/m 3 , range ¼ 0.24-2.17 mg/m 3 ) compared with exposures in the construction industry [Linch et al, 1998;Lumens and Spee, 2001;Rappaport et al, 2003;Tjoe Nij et al, 2003;Flanagan et al, 2006].…”

“…Exposure levels in the construction industry still frequently exceed the limits [Flynn and Susi, 2003;Tjoe Nij et al, 2003;Flanagan et al, 2006]. Also, workers' behavior has been shown to be a relevant determinant of exposure [Lumens and Spee, 2001].…”

Occupational Health and Safety Status of Ongoing Construction Work in Patuakhali Science and Technology University, Dumki, Patuakhali

“…Construction hazards have received considerable attention over the last two decades [5]. Researchers internationally have examined hazards, consequences, and costs and developed numerous interventions and tailored controls [6].…”