| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 431-432, 2002
© 2002 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press
Letters to the Editor |
Reply
Division of Environmental and Occupational Health, School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA
| The first 10% of the full text of this article appears below. |
Burstyn and Kromhout have provided a thoughtful and substantial critique of my paper (Ramachandran, 2001). They raise several issues that are relevant in a general sense to subjective exposure assessment and several that are specific to my paper. I hope my response clarifies these issues to some extent.
I agree with Burstyn and Kromhout that industrial hygienists need to be calibrated before subjectively assessing exposures. However, the evidence for this is mixed and there is a limited amount of validatory data on this issue (Kromhout et al., 1987; Hawkins and Evans, 1989; Post et al., 1991; Hornung et al., 1994). Hawkins and Evans (1989) have shown that industrial hygienists gave ‘remarkably accurate subjective estimates of the mean exposure without historical data and even better estimates with the data’. Thus, providing assessors with reference exposure
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  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]
|
|