Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 47, No. 2, pp. 95-99, 2003
© 2003 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press
Commentary: Variability in Workplace Exposures and the Design of Efficient Measurement and Control Strategies
1 Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands; 2 Centre for Occupational and Environmental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
Received 8 November 2002; in final form 19 November 2002
Kromhout et al.s (1993) well-cited publication presented detailed information on statistical procedures to estimate the magnitude of exposure variability within and between workers, drawing from a large database on chemical exposures throughout industry. It convincingly demonstrated that the construct of homogeneous exposure groups often does not hold true and suggested ways to improve measurement strategies. The authors hit a rich vein of research, and many publications, not at least by the authors themselves, followed in the decade after publication. In recent years the principles of estimating the variation in exposure have been applied in new methods for optimization of sampling strategies, for compliance testing, for quantifying exposures in epidemiologic studies, and for identifying important sources of emissions and suggesting strategies for controlling exposures. Many occupational hygienists across the globe have adopted these new methods as powerful tools in their exposure assessment strategies.
Keywords: exposure assessment; variability
![]()
CiteULike
Connotea
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
C.-C. Chen, C.-L. Chuang, K.-Y. Wu, and C.-C. Chan Sampling Strategies for Occupational Exposure Assessment under Generalized Linear Model Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2009; 53(5): 509 - 521. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. Hagstrom, C. Lundholm, K. Eriksson, and I. Liljelind Variability and Determinants of Wood Dust and Resin Acid Exposure during Wood Pellet Production: Measurement Strategies and Bias in Assessing Exposure-Response Relationships Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2008; 52(8): 685 - 694. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
J. LAVOUE, D. BEGIN, C. BEAUDRY, and M. GERIN Monte Carlo Simulation to Reconstruct Formaldehyde Exposure Levels from Summary Parameters Reported in the Literature Ann. Hyg., March 1, 2007; 51(2): 161 - 172. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
T. OGDEN Annals of Occupational Hygiene at Volume 50: Many Achievements, a Few Mistakes, and an Interesting Future Ann. Hyg., November 1, 2006; 50(8): 751 - 764. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
E. SYMANSKI, S. MABERTI, and W. CHAN A Meta-Analytic Approach for Characterizing the Within-Worker and Between-Worker Sources of Variation in Occupational Exposure Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2006; 50(4): 343 - 357. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
M. C. FRIESEN, Y. C. MACNAB, S. A. MARION, P. A. DEMERS, H. W. DAVIES, and K. TESCHKE Mixed Models and Empirical Bayes Estimation for Retrospective Exposure Assessment of Dust Exposures in Canadian Sawmills Ann. Hyg., April 1, 2006; 50(3): 281 - 288. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
