Annals of Occupational Hygiene Advance Access originally published online on November 28, 2006
Annals of Occupational Hygiene 2007 51(3):241-248; doi:10.1093/annhyg/mel075
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
© 2006 British Occupational Hygiene Society Published by Oxford University Press
Exposure to Wood Dust Among Carpenters in the Construction Industry in The Netherlands
1 Arbouw PO Box 8114, 1005 AC Amsterdam, The Netherlands
2 Océ Technologies PO Box 101, 5600 JZ Eindhoven, The Netherlands
3 Arbodienst DAF trucks PO Box 90065, 5600PT Eindhoven, The Netherlands
4 Arbo Unie PO Box 95030, 1090 HA Amsterdam, The Netherlands
5 Environmental Epidemiology Division, Institute for Risk Assessment Sciences Utrecht University PO Box 80176, 3508 TD Utrecht, The Netherlands
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail: spee{at}arbouw.nl
 |
ABSTRACT |
|---|
 TOP ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSAnnex AREFERENCES |
|---|
Exposure to wood dust was measured among 26 carpenters at 13 building projects. Sampling days were chosen randomly. Individual tasks, based on technology applied and material used during a working day, were sampled separately. From these task-based measurements, 8 h time-weighted average concentrations were calculated. Sampling was performed in accordance with a protocol that was developed by the carpentry and furniture industry and which was especially designed for sampling of wood dust. Eight hours time-weighted average exposure to wood dust ranged from 0.8 to 11.6 mg m–3 with a geometric mean (GM) of 3.3 mg m–3 and a geometric standard deviation (GSD) of 2.1. The probability of exceedance of the OEL, when comparing the estimated concentrations against the Dutch OEL of 2 mg m–3, was 75%. The highest exposures were measured during sawing of Cempanel sheets. Task-based measurements showed lowest exposures when working outdoors (n = 11, AM = 2.2 mg m–3), but even then 5 out of 11 task-based exposures exceeded 2 mg m–3. Indoors the exposure was 5.2 mg m–3 (AM, n = 29) and when working both indoors and outdoors exposure was 16.2 mg m–3 (AM, n = 4). In conclusion, long-term average exposure to wood dust among carpenters at construction sites is more than 1.5 times the present occupational exposure limit of 2 mg m–3. The estimated probability of exceedance of the OEL was 75% and a reduction of exposure with a factor 5 is needed to bring the probability of exceedance below 5%. It is intended to lower the exposure limit to 1 mg m–3 by 1 January 2007. In that case the probability of exceedance of the OEL is 95% and a reduction of exposure with a factor 10 is needed to bring the probability of exceedance below 5%. This can be achieved by using alternative materials, preparation of building material in workshops equipped with exposure controls, alternative equipment and improved ventilation and good housekeeping.
Keywords: construction • wood dust
|
INTRODUCTION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSAnnex AREFERENCES |
|---|
In 1999, the Dutch Maximum Accepted Concentration (MAC) for wood dust was lowered from 5 to 2 mg m–3 inhalable dust (as defined in NEN EN 481, 1994), as a time-weighted average over a working day of 8 h (Arbeidsinspectie, 2003). This new value was based on an advice of the Dutch Expert Committee for Occupational Standards (DECOS) from the National Health Council. DECOS advised a health-based recommended occupational exposure value of 0.2 mg m–3, based on irritation of the respiratory tract (DECOS, 1992). The Committee on the evaluation of the carcinogenicity of chemical substances from the Health Council of The Netherlands calculated an additional lifetime risk of nasal cancer (based on linear extrapolation) of 1 in 250 at 5.8 mg m–3 and of 1 in 25 000 at 0.06 mg m–3 of wood dust, both for workplace exposure during a working life (40 years) (Health Council of the Netherlands, 2000). The Committee recommends that hard wood and soft wood should be treated identically when deriving toxicology-based recommended exposure limits. As the calculation of cancer risk is based on linear extrapolation, it can be concluded that at the recommended exposure limit the additional lifetime risk is 1 in 7250. In The Netherlands, all hard wood is considered a confirmed human carcinogen and soft wood is seen as a suspect carcinogen (Arbeidsinspectie, 2003).
On the basis of a feasibility study for this recommended exposure limit (Tobé et al., 1995), the Social Economic Council advised setting the limit value at a concentration of 2 mg m–3 (8-h TWA). The Minister followed this advice. However, in 2003 the wood trade and the government have agreed to strive for a limit value of 1 mg m–3 by 1 July 2006 (Staatscourant, 2003). Meanwhile, the lowering of the limit value is suspended to 1 January 2007.
A wealth of wood dust exposure data have been collected in the wood and furniture industry (Scheidt et al., 1989; Beumer et al., 1991; Scheeper, 1994; Lohse et al., 1995; Scheeper et al., 1995; Tobé et al., 1995; Vinzents et al., 2000; Schlunssen et al., 2001; Vinzents et al., 2001; Hall et al., 2002; Mikkelsen et al., 2002; Fransman et al., 2003; Hursthouse et al., 2004; Rongo et al., 2004). Especially the older studies show that the occupational exposure limit for wood dust is frequently exceeded, in particular in the furniture industry. Mechanical processing such as sawing with a circular saw, mechanical sanding, etc. leads to exposures well above the exposure limit. Information on exposure to wood dust at mobile work places, as in the construction industry, is however non-existent in The Netherlands and scarce in other countries. Recently, Kauppinen et al. (2006) have surveyed occupational exposure to inhalable wood dust in the 25 member states of the European Union. They estimate construction, with over a million exposed workers (33% of all exposed), to be the largest population at risk. They also estimate exposure to exceed 2 mg m–3 for 54% of all construction workers exposed. Teschke et al. (1999) analysed wood dust exposure data from the U.S. OSHA Integrated Management Information System. Out of 1632 samples taken from 1979 to 1997, only 23 (1.4%) were from the construction industry. Exposure ranged from n.d. to 538 mg m–3 (GM = 1.21, GSD = 10.5), compared to n.d. to 604 (GM = 1.86, GSD = 6.82) for all samples.
Nevertheless, several decades ago exposure to wood dust was already noticed as a potential health hazard in the construction industry in The Netherlands (BGBouw, 1985).
For this reason, we performed a survey of the exposure to wood dust among carpenters in the construction industry. The objectives of the study were to determine exposure to wood dust and to see whether exposures were exceeding the OEL. Furthermore, we strived to determine which tasks contribute most to exposure concentrations and to identify possibilities to reduce exposure.
In the Dutch commercial and residential building industry there are about 11 000 companies, employing about 135 000 labourers. About 64 000 of these are carpenters (Blomsma, 2005). Other jobs with possible exposure to wood dust are model makers, setters, wood working machine operators and carpenter/bricklayers. Some exposure to wood dust may occur among ceiling fitters, warehouse personnel, painters, scaffolding builders and assistants (Bloemhoff, 1994).
Workplace exposures within the construction industry can vary considerably. In many cases, work is done in the open air and therefore a low exposure to wood dust can be expected. In other cases, however, machining of wood is done inside a building or in a sawing shed. Not only may the environmental conditions vary considerably, but also the nature and the duration of the tasks can vary extensively.
|
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSAnnex AREFERENCES |
|---|
Exposure to wood dust was measured among 26 persons at 13 building projects from 12 companies. General figures for the distribution of companies by number of employees are presented in Table 1 for the year 2002, together with figures for selected companies in this study (Blomsma, 2005). These figures show that the selection of companies reasonably matches the size distribution of Dutch construction companies.
|
Sampling days were chosen randomly. Most workers were sampled twice on 1 day. In one case three samples were taken, and seven workers were sampled only once.
The tasks during the working day were sampled separately. The duration of the task-based measurements varied from 56 to 230 min. In total 44 task-based measurements were performed.
From the task-based measurements, the 8 h time-weighted average exposures were estimated by weighting the task-based measurements by their duration. When the carpenters were not working on wood, for instance measuring, or bringing in material and equipment, the following values were used:
- When the worker was at the work place, the background concentration as measured at the workplace was used. Sampling time for background concentrations ranged from 180 to 330 min;
- When the worker was not at the workplace, but for instance in a separate room for a break or in his car driving home, exposure was assumed to be zero.
From the individually estimated 8-h TWA concentrations the geometric mean (GM), the geometric standard deviation (GSD) and the probability of exceeding the exposure limit were estimated. For calculations on task-based measurements, the arithmetic mean (AM) was used.
For one project, there was no area sample. The result of the sample from an identical project was used as a measure for background concentration.
Sweeping is not a normal task for carpenters; this is done by cleaners. However, at three of the projects, the carpenters have swept after work. On one occasion there was a sweeping team of two persons. These tasks have been sampled separately.
Personal and area sampling were performed in accordance with a protocol that was developed by the carpentry and furniture industry and which was especially designed for sampling of wood dust. This protocol prescribes a 6 mm sampling head (PAS-6) (Kuile, 1984). Gilian HFS sampling pumps were used, operated at a flow of 2.1 litre min–1. Dust was collected on glass fibre filters. Filters were weighed before and after sampling on an analytical balance (0.01 mg). Before weighing, filters were conditioned during 24 h in the weighing room. Temperature and relative humidity in the room were recorded. Calculations were made with SAS V8-02 for Windows software.
Table 2 describes the companies in the study and the types of surveyed projects are summarized in Table 3.
|
|
|
RESULTS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSAnnex AREFERENCES |
|---|
The activities during the measurements are summarized in Annex A. The location is mentioned only if an activity could be done indoors or outdoors. Additional activities are mentioned in brackets.
The results of the exposure measurements are presented in Table 4.
|
It is not clear which activities contribute most to exposure. Exposures during jobs including sawing varied from 0.8 to 12.6 mg m–3 (n = 36). For other activities, except working with Cempanel, exposures varied from 1.6 to 5.7 mg m–3 (n = 5). Other circumstances, such as duration of the specific task within the job, and whether exposure is indoors or outdoors, eclipse the contribution of the activities.
By far the highest exposures were measured when Cempanel sheets were sawn. It must be kept in mind, however, that Cempanel is not only wood. The composition is 63.5% wood, 25% Portland cement 10% bonded water and 1.5% neutralizers (NBD, 2004). But even then, measured exposures of 25.8 and 34.9 mg m–3 should be considered to be extremely high. High concentrations were also found when working with electric tools (Table 3, activity 14 and 15). One high concentration was found when installing kitchen units, but during this measurement drilling in lime-sandstone took place at the same time.
Sweeping has been sampled separately. The results are presented in Table 5. In these samples, other dust such as cement dust and sand may be present together with wood dust, but even when the dust is considered to be nuisance dust, these tasks yield very high exposures to inhalable dust.
|
The GM of the estimated 8-h TWA concentrations among this group of 26 construction workers was high and exceeded the OEL at 3.3 mg m–3 (range 0.8–11.6 mg m–3). The GSD of 2.1 was not extreme given the partly outdoor conditions (Kromhout et al., 1993). Based on these parameters, the estimated probability of exceedance was 75% (using an OEL of 2 mg m–3).
|
DISCUSSION |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSAnnex AREFERENCES |
|---|
Results of exposure measurements
Exposure to wood dust has been measured at a variety of jobs that are common in the construction industry. Measurements were performed at new developments as well as in renovation and at large and small companies. The variety of projects and of sizes of companies provided a representative picture of exposure to wood dust in the construction industry in The Netherlands. Long-term average exposure amounts to 3.3 mg m–3, which is more than one and a half times the occupational exposure limit in The Netherlands. The probability of exceeding this OEL is high at 75%. This means that, on a random day, three out of every four carpenters will be exposed to a concentration above the limit for wood dust (2 mg m–3). For the future OEL of 1 mg m–3 this probability will be 95%, meaning that, on a given day, for 19 out of every 20 carpenters the exposure exceeds the limit value when no measures are taken to reduce exposure.
Recent studies in the wood manufacturing industry showed considerably lower exposures. In a study in the Danish furniture industry the average exposure to wood dust, measured with passive samplers, from 2362 personal samples from 54 factories was 0.93 mg m–3 (GM, GSD = 2.08) (Mikkelsen et al., 2002). In a New Zealand plywood factory, the average exposure, measured with an IOM sampler, was 0.7 mg m–3 (GM from 57 samples, GSD = 1.9) (Fransman et al., 2003). In small-scale enterprises in a developing country the average exposure to wood dust also measured with a PAS-6 inhalable dust sampler was similar to what was found in our study: 3.3 mg m–3 (GM from 281 samples, GSD = 2.5) (Rongo et al., 2004). In these small mainly outdoor workshops no control measures were present to prevent exposure to wood dust like in our study.
The total sampled time was 8474 minutes. From this time, 21% was sampled when working outdoors. Seventy-three per cent of the time was sampled when working indoors and 6% of the time work was done indoors as well as outdoors. As can be expected, the lowest exposures were found outdoors (jobs 1–4). The AM of 11 task-based samples was 2.2 mg m–3. However, even when working outdoors 5 out of 11 task-based exposures exceeded 2 mg m–3 and 10 of them exceeded 1 mg m–3. The AM of the 29 samples taken indoors was 5.2 mg m–3 and exposures when working both outdoors and indoors were highest (n = 4; AM = 16.2 mg m–3). Two of the samples yielded very high results; these were taken during the sawing of Cempanel.
It is well known that the PAS-6 sampler underestimates exposures at high wind speeds (>0.5 m s–1) (Kenny et al., 1997). High wind speeds can be expected in this study when working outdoors, especially on a roof and this raises the question whether the exposure to wood dust has been underestimated. However, only 21% of the time consisted of outdoor work and the exposure was about half of that found indoors. So even when the ‘real’ exposure during outdoor work is 25% higher than found, this will raise the GM with only about 0.1 mg m–3.
During specific tasks such as sawing and sanding, Hursthouse et al. (2004) report high exposures of 6.1–91 mg m–3 when working with MDF and 2.5–45 mg m–3 when working with softwood. In our study, sawing of Cempanel sheets indoors (job 5) yielded the highest exposure (25.8–34.9 mg m–3 during 2 h). Also when much sawing was done indoors (jobs 12, 13 and 14) exposures were high (5.2–12.6 mg m–3, AM = 8.7 mg m–3).
Background concentrations generally varied from 0.4 to 1.6 mg m–3. However, when working with Cempanel, the background concentration in the working room was 3.0 mg m–3, even though Cempanel was sawn outdoors. Presumably, the dust remaining on the material caused a high dust exposure indoors where the Cempanel sheets were mounted. Also in the workshop the background concentration was high, 2.3–3.0 mg m–3.
Exposure to dust during sweeping varied from 8.0 to 56.1 mg m–3. Other dusts than wood dust could have been present on the floor, which makes it unlikely that the inhalable fraction consisted entirely of wood dust. High dust concentrations during sweeping are not uncommon (Riala, 1988; Spee et al., 1998).
Reduction of exposure
The exposure data show that control measures should be taken to lower the exposure to wood dust in this industry. There are several possibilities:
Use of alternative materials
Work with Cempanel especially yielded high exposures to dust. Alternatives such as Multiplex board are more favourable in this respect. As Cempanel sawing led to exposure concentrations of more than 30 mg m–3, and other sawing work indoors resulted in average exposure of 
9 mg m–3, a factor three reduction of exposure concentrations should be possible. Hursthouse et al. (2004) found a high exposure range when working with MDF (6.9–91 mg m–3), compared to soft wood (2.5–45 mg m–3). The situation will even improve more when Cempanel is replaced by non-wood-containing alternatives that can be brought to size with a knife, such as gypsum board.
Preparing material in the workshop
Compared to the building site, exposure to wood dust can be more easily controlled in the workshop. It has been estimated that optimal planning could result in preparation of 50% of the material tooled at the construction site, in the workshop (Arbouw, 2001). At the construction site, this would mean a reduction of exposure with a factor 2.
Alternative equipment
Both use of a jigsaw instead of a hand-held circular saw and use of a flat sander instead of a belt sander yield a reduction of exposure with a factor 5 to 10 (Thorpe and Brown, 1994; Noy et al., 2002).
Local exhaust ventilation
Local exhaust ventilation on a hand-held sander reduces the exposure to wood dust with a factor 3 to 10 (Möller, 1994; Thorpe and Brown, 1994) and on a hand-held circular saw with a factor 3 to 4 (Noy et al., 2002).
Good housekeeping and general ventilation
We found no data for the effect of general ventilation on exposure to wood dust. However, reduction factors ranging from about 2 to 4 are reported on exposure to dust form stony materials when applying natural general ventilation (Lumens and Spee, 2001; Golla and Heitbrink, 2004) Cecala et al. (2000) report reduction factors of 1.6 (40%), 1.6 (36%) and 2.8 (64%) with mechanical ventilation of 10, 17 and 34 air changes per hour. Based on these figures we estimate that a reduction factor about 2 can be attributed to natural ventilation by working with doors and windows open.
Several authors emphasize the importance of good housekeeping for reduction of exposure (Cecala et al., 2000; Vermeulen et al., 2000). However, no quantitative data for reduction of exposure in woodworking could be found.
It can be concluded that a reduction of exposure concentration by a factor 2, which brings the mean exposure (GM) below the limit value, can be achieved relatively simply. A reduction with a factor 5, however, is needed to bring the probability of exceeding the OEL below 5%. Combination of several of the described control measures will enable this.
|
CONCLUSIONS |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSAnnex AREFERENCES |
|---|
The long-term average exposure to wood dust among carpenters at construction sites was estimated to be 3.3 mg m–3, which is more than 1.5 times the present occupational exposure limit in The Netherlands and more than three times the future exposure limit. This is considerably higher than current wood dust exposure in the wood manufacturing industry and is as high as wood dust exposure among woodworkers in the informal sector of a developing country (Tanzania). The probability of exceeding the OEL was very high at 75% and a reduction of exposure with a factor 5 is needed to bring this probability below 5%. With an OEL of 1 mg m–3 the probability of exceeding the OEL becomes 95% and reduction of exposure must be a factor 10. This reduction can be achieved with a combination of technical and logistical control measures.
|
Annex A |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSAnnex AREFERENCES |
|---|
|
Received February 8, 2006; in final form October 23, 2006
|
REFERENCES |
|---|
|
TOPABSTRACTINTRODUCTIONMATERIALS AND METHODSRESULTSDISCUSSIONCONCLUSIONSAnnex AREFERENCES |
|---|
Arbeidsinspectie. (2003) Nationale MAC lijst 2003 (National List of Maximum Accepted Concentrations 2003). Den Haag: SDU Uitgevers (in Dutch).
Arbouw. 2001 Intern rapport Toetsing concept A-blad houtstofop de bouwplaats (assessment of the A-document wood dust at the construction site). Amsterdam: Stichting Arbouw (in Dutch).
Beumer PFM, Hessels AB, Musson JHMM, et al. Arbeidsomstandigheden in de houtverwerkende industrie, rapportnummer S 114 (Working conditions in the wood-working industry, report number S 114). In: Directoraat-Generaal van de Arbeid van het ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid. (1991) Den Haag: Directorate-General of Labour of the Ministery of Social Affairs and Employment (in Dutch).
BGBouw. (1985) Beroepen in de bouw. De timmerman in onderhoud, renovatie en restauratie. Amsterdam: Stichting Bedrijfsgezondheidsdienst voor de Bouwnijverheid (occupations in the construction industry. The maintenance, renovation and restoration carpenter. Foundation Occupational health service for the construction industry) (in Dutch).
Bloemhoff A, Putten van DJ, Duivenbooden van JC. Beoordelingsrichtlijnen voor arbeidsgeschiktheid. In: (Guidelines for assessment of fitness for work). (1994) Amsterdam: Stichting Arbouw. (in Dutch).
Blomsma G. De bouwarbeidsmarkt in het najaar van 2004. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Economisch Instituut voor de Bouwnijverheid (The construction labour market in the autumn of 2004. (2005) Economic Institute for the Construction Industry) (in Dutch), pp. 11.
Cecala AB, Timko RJ, Thimons ED. Methods to lower dust exposure of bag machine operators and bag stackers. Appl Occup Environ Hyg (2000) 15:751–65.[CrossRef][Medline]
DECOS. 1992 Health-based recommended occupational exposure limit for wood dust, rapportnummer RA 8/91. Den Haag: Dutch expert committee for occupational standards, Directorate-General of Labour. ISBN 90-5307-244-6.
Fransman W, McLean D, Douwes J, et al. Respiratory symptoms, occupational exposures in New Zealand plywood mill workers. Ann Occup Hyg (2003) 47:287–95.
Golla V, Heitbrink W. Control technology for crystalline silica exposure in construction: wet abrasive blasting. J Occup Environ Hyg (2004) 1:D26–32.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Hall AH, Teschke K, Davies H, Demers P, Marion S. Exposure levels, determinants of softwood dust exposures in BC lumber mills, 1981-1997. In: AIHA J (2002) 63:709–14.[CrossRef]
Health Council of the Netherlands (2000) Health Council of the Netherlands: Hardwood and softwood dust; evaluation of the carcinogenicity and genotoxicity. The Hague: Health Council of the Netherlands. Publication no. 2000/08OSH.
Hursthouse A, Allan F, Rowley L, et al. A pilot study of personal exposure to respirable, inhalable dust during the sanding and sawing of medium density fibreboard (MDF) and soft wood. Int J Environ Health Res (2004) 14:323–6.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Kenny LC, Aitken R, Chalmers C, et al. A collaborative European study of personal inhalable aerosol sampler performance. Ann Occup Hyg (1997) 41:135–53.
Kauppinen T, Vincent R, Liukkonen T, et al. Occupational exposure to inhalable wood dust in the 25 member states of the European Union. In: Ann Occup Hyg (2006) 50:549–61.
Kromhout H, Symanski E, Rappaport SM. A comprehensive evaluation of within- and between-worker components of occupational exposure to chemical agents. Ann Occup Hyg (1993) 37:253–70.
Kuile ter WM. Vergleichmessungen mit verschiedenen Geraeten zur Bestimmung der Gesamtstaubkonzentration am Arbeitsplatz: Teil II. (Comparative measurements with several devices to determine the total dust concentration at the workplace). Staub Reinh Luft (1984) 44:211–6. (in German).
Lohse G, Renkewitz K, Schurig L. Holzstaubbelastugen, Untersuchungsergebnise aus der Holzbranche der neuen Bundesländer. (Wood dust exposure, results of research in the wood industry from the wood trade in the new federal states). Staub Reinh de luft (1995) 55:69–72. (in German).
Lumens MEGL, pee T. Determinants of exposure to respirable quartz dust in the construction industry. In: Ann Occup Hyg (2001) 45:585–95.
Mikkelsen AB, Schlunssen V, Sisgard T, et al. Determinants of wood dust exposure in the Danish furniture industry. Ann Occup Hyg (2002) 46:673–85.
Möller J. Orientierende Untersuchungen zur Entstehung der Gesamtstaubbelastung in Tischlereibetrieben; Abschlussbericht. (1994) Bonn: Bundesministerium für Forschung und Technologie. (in German) (Orientating research on the sources of total dust exposure in furniture companies, final report. Federal Ministry for Research and Technology).
Nederlands Normalisatie Instituut (NEN, Dutch Standardisation Institute). (1994) NEN-EN 481, Werkplekatmostfeer—definitie van de deeltjesgrootteverdeling voor het meten van in de lucht zwevende deeltjes (Workplace atmospheres. Size fraction definitions for measurement of airborne particles). Delft, The Netherlands: NEN.
NBD. (2004) Nederlandse Bouw Documentatie (Dutch Construction Documentation): Cempanel. Sheet No. SfB Rf5. Den Haag, The Netherlands: SDU. ISBN 90 5404 9790 (in Dutch).
Noy TAJ, Hoof WGM van, Rijdt-van Hoof EMA van de, et al. Houtstof in de bouwnijverheid, blootstelling en beheersmaatregelen (Wood dust in the construction industry, exposure, control measures). (2002) Amsterdam: Stichting Arbouw (in Dutch).
Riala R. Dust and quartz exposure of Finnish construction site cleaners. Ann Occup Hyg (1988) 32:215–20.
Rongo LM, Msamanga GI, Burstyn I, et al. Exposure to wood dust, endotoxin in small-scale wood industries in Tanzania. J Expo Anal Environ Epidemiol (2004) 14:544–50.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Scheeper B. Toxische stoffen in de houtverwerkende bedrijven. Rapport S-167. (1994) Den Haag: Ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (in Dutch).
Scheeper B, Kromhout H, Boleij JSM. Wood-dust exposure during wood-working processes. Ann Occup Hyg (1995) 39:141–54.
Scheidt R, Ehrhardt H.-P, Bartsch R. Zur Risikobewertung beruflicher Holzstaubexposition (Risk assessment of occupational exposure to wood dust). Arbeitsmedizin (1989) 24:167–73. (in German).
Schlunssen V, Vinzents PS, Mikkelsen AB, et al. Wood dust exposure in the Danish furniture industry using conventional, passive monitors. Ann Occup Hyg (2001) 45:157–64.
Spee T, Frijters ACP, Krimpen R van, et al. Oriënterende studie naar vermindering van blootstelling aan stof tijdens veegwerkzaamheden in de bouw (Orientating study on reduction of exposure to dust when sweeping at the construction site). Tijdschrift voor toegepaste Arbowetenschap (1998) 98:16–7. (in Dutch).
Staatscourant. Arboconvenant houthandel (Working conditions agreement for the wood trade). Staatscourant (2003) 107:18–22. (in Dutch).
Teschke K, Marion SA, Vaughan TL, et al. Exposures to wood dust in U.S. industries and occupations, 1979 to 1997. Am J Ind Med (1999) 35:581–9.[CrossRef][Web of Science][Medline]
Thorpe A, Brown RC. Measurements of the effectiveness of dust extraction systems of handsanders used on wood. Ann Occup Hyg (1994) 38:279–302.
Thorpe A, Brown RC. An improved design for the dust extraction system of orbital sanders used on wood. Ann Occup Hyg (1995) 39:155–65.
Thorpe A, Brown RC. Factors influencing the production of dust during the handsanding of wood. Am Ind Hyg Assoc J (1995) 56:236–42.[Web of Science]
Tobé WH, Luiten PWJ, Boeckhout CI. Werkterreinanalyse houtstof, rapportnummer S 183 (Assessment of the construction trade, report nr S 183). (1995) Den Haag: Directoraat-Generaal van de arbeid van het ministerie van Sociale Zaken en Werkgelegenheid (in Dutch).
Vermeulen R, Bos RP, de Hartog J, et al. Mutagenic profile of rubber dust, fume exposure in two rubber tire companies. Mutat Res (2000) 468:165–71.[Web of Science][Medline]
Vinzents PS, Schlünssen V, Feveile H, et al. Variations in exposure to inhalable wood dust in the Danish furniture industry. Within- and between-worker and factory components estimated from passive dust sampling. Ann Occup Hyg (2001) 45:603–8.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. S. Galea, M. Van Tongeren, A. J. Sleeuwenhoek, D. While, M. Graham, A. Bolton, H. Kromhout, and J. W. Cherrie Trends in Wood Dust Inhalation Exposure in the UK, 1985-2005 Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2009; 53(7): 657 - 667. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Gori, M. Carrieri, M. L. Scapellato, G. Parvoli, D. Ferrara, R. Rella, A. Sturaro, and G. B. Bartolucci 2-Methylanthraquinone as a Marker of Occupational Exposure to Teak Wood Dust in Boatyards Ann. Hyg., January 1, 2009; 53(1): 27 - 32. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||