Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 469-495, 1995
© 1995 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Oxford University Press
research-article |
AN EXPOSURE—ASSESSMENT STRATEGY ACCOUNTING FOR WITHIN- AND BETWEEN-WORKER SOURCES OF VARIABILITY
School of Public Health, University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, NC 27599–7400, U.S.A.
A strategy is presented for comparing exposures to an occupational exposure limit (OEL) and for suggesting appropriate interventions when exposures are unacceptable. The major departure from previous approaches is the explicit recognition that exposures vary both within and between workers in a given occupational group. The primary goal is to determine whether the probability of overexposure is acceptably small (a value of 0.10 or less is recommended), with overexposure being defined as the likelihood that a randomly selected worker's true mean exposure exceeds the OEL. The exposure-assessment protocol contains five levels. It is suggested that at least two shift-long measurements be randomly collected from each of 10 workers for preliminary analysis. If the logged exposure data appear to be appropriate for testing (Level 1), the probability of-overexposure is compared to the pre-determined value via a rigorous test of statistical significance (Level 2). Based upon published data, this test is likely to classify exposures as acceptable with 20 measurements when the group mean exposure is less than one-fifth of the OEL. However, if exposure is found to be unacceptable, re-sampling can be considered to increase the power of the test (Level 3). Otherwise, it is necessary to reduce exposures and then to re-apply the protocol. If it appears that all persons in the group have essentially the same predicted mean exposures (Level 4), then engineering or administrative controls are recommended. If, on the other hand, substantial differences appear to exist amongst these predicted mean values, regrouping and/or modifications of tasks and work practices should be considered (Level 5). Application of the protocol is illustrated with samples of data from four groups of workers exposed to inorganic nickel in the nickel-producing industry.
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. M Rappaport Assessing workplace exposures: turning to the past for guidance Occup. Environ. Med., July 1, 2009; 66(7): 429 - 430. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. Tischer, S. Bredendiek-KAmper, U. Poppek, and R. Packroff How Safe is Control Banding? Integrated Evaluation by Comparing OELs with Measurement Data and Using Monte Carlo Simulation Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2009; 53(5): 449 - 462. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
G. Ramachandran Toward Better Exposure Assessment Strategies--The New NIOSH Initiative Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2008; 52(5): 297 - 301. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. Spaan, J. Schinkel, I. M. Wouters, L. Preller, E. Tielemans, E. T. Nij, and D. Heederik Variability in Endotoxin Exposure Levels and Consequences for Exposure Assessment Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2008; 52(5): 303 - 316. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. A. M. Smit, D. Heederik, G. Doekes, C. Blom, I. van Zweden, and I. M. Wouters Exposure-response analysis of allergy and respiratory symptoms in endotoxin-exposed adults Eur. Respir. J., June 1, 2008; 31(6): 1241 - 1248. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
T. L. Ogden and D. L. Bartley The Ups and Downs of Journal Impact Factors Ann. Hyg., March 1, 2008; 52(2): 73 - 82. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L A MacDonald, A Harenstam, N D Warren, and L Punnett Incorporating work organisation into occupational health research: an invitation for dialogue Occup. Environ. Med., January 1, 2008; 65(1): 1 - 3. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
K KRISHNAMOORTHY, T. MATHEW, and G. RAMACHANDRAN Upper Limits for Exceedance Probabilities Under the One-Way Random Effects Model Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2007; 51(4): 397 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. HERTSENBERG, D. BROUWER, M. LURVINK, C. RUBINGH, E. RIJNDERS, and E. TIELEMANS Quantitative Self-Assessment of Exposure to Solvents Among Shoe Repair Men Ann. Hyg., January 1, 2007; 51(1): 45 - 51. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. H. D. MAMUYA, M. BRATVEIT, J. MWAISELAGE, and B. E. MOEN Variability of Exposure and Estimation of Cumulative Exposure in a Manually Operated Coal Mine Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2006; 50(7): 737 - 745. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. G. LAMPA, L. NILSSON, I. E. LILJELIND, and I. A. BERGDAHL Optimizing Occupational Exposure Measurement Strategies When Estimating the Log-Scale Arithmetic Mean Value--An Example from the Reinforced Plastics Industry Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2006; 50(4): 371 - 377. [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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L A M Smit, I M Wouters, M M Hobo, W Eduard, G Doekes, and D Heederik Agricultural seed dust as a potential cause of organic dust toxic syndrome Occup. Environ. Med., January 1, 2006; 63(1): 59 - 67. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
M. VAN TONGEREN, I. BURSTYN, H. KROMHOUT, and K. GARDINER Are Variance Components of Exposure Heterogeneous Between Time Periods and Factories in the European Carbon Black Industry? Ann. Hyg., January 1, 2006; 50(1): 55 - 64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. LAVOUE, C. BEAUDRY, N. GOYER, G. PERRAULT, and M. GERIN Investigation of Determinants of Past and Current Exposures to Formaldehyde in the Reconstituted Wood Panel Industry in Quebec Ann. Hyg., October 1, 2005; 49(7): 587 - 602. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. MWAISELAGE, M. BRATVEIT, B. MOEN, and M. YOST Variability in Dust Exposure in a Cement Factory in Tanzania Ann. Hyg., August 1, 2005; 49(6): 511 - 519. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. DION, A. DUFRESNE, M. JACOB, and G. PERRAULT Assessment of Exposure to Quartz, Cristobalite and Silicon Carbide Fibres (Whiskers) in a Silicon Carbide Plant Ann. Hyg., June 1, 2005; 49(4): 335 - 343. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A Burdorf Identification of determinants of exposure: consequences for measurement and control strategies Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2005; 62(5): 344 - 350. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. M. Rappaport, L. L. Kupper, and Y. S. Lin On the Importance of Exposure Variability to the Doses of Volatile Organic Compounds Toxicol. Sci., February 1, 2005; 83(2): 224 - 236. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. RAPPAPORT and M. FLYNN Commentary: Two Seminal Contributions of S. A. Roach to the Evaluation and Control of Hazardous Substances in Air Ann. Hyg., July 1, 2003; 47(5): 343 - 348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
A. BURDORF and M. V. TONGEREN Commentary: Variability in Workplace Exposures and the Design of Efficient Measurement and Control Strategies Ann. Hyg., March 1, 2003; 47(2): 95 - 99. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. M. RAPPAPORT, M. GOLDBERG, P. SUSI, and R. F. HERRICK Excessive Exposure to Silica in the US Construction Industry Ann. Hyg., March 1, 2003; 47(2): 111 - 122. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
H. Kromhout Design of measurement strategies for workplace exposures Occup. Environ. Med., May 1, 2002; 59(5): 349 - 354. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. TIELEMANS, H. MARQUART, J. DE COCK, M. GROENEWOLD, and J. VAN HEMMEN A Proposal for Evaluation of Exposure Data Ann. Hyg., April 1, 2002; 46(3): 287 - 297. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
D. LAZOVICH, D. M. MURRAY, L. M. BROSSEAU, D. L. PARKER, F. T. MILTON, and S. K. DUGAN Sample Size Considerations for Studies of Intervention Efficacy in the Occupational Setting Ann. Hyg., March 1, 2002; 46(2): 219 - 227. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. PERETZ, A. GOREN, T. SMID, and H. KROMHOUT Application of Mixed-effects Models for Exposure Assessment Ann. Hyg., January 1, 2002; 46(1): 69 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. H. Lange A Statistical Evaluation of Asbestos Air Concentrations Indoor and Built Environment, September 1, 1999; 8(5): 293 - 303. [Abstract] [PDF]
|
|