Workplace Measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: Descriptive Analysis and Potential Uses for Exposure Assessment
Workplace Measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: Descriptive Analysis and Potential Uses for Exposure Assessment
复制标题
DOI：
10.1093/annhyg/mes055
复制
发表时间：
2013-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Burstyn, I.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lavoue, J.;Friesen, M. C.;Burstyn, I.
自1972年以来，美国职业安全与健康管理局（OSHA）的检查员一直在收集工业卫生样本，以验证是否符合允许接触限值。从1979年开始，这些计量工作已计算机化，输入综合管理信息系统（综管系统）。2010年，在湖城的职业安全与健康管理局中心实验室分析的超过100万个人样本结果的数据集[化学品暴露健康数据]通过互联网进入公共领域，该数据集与综管系统数据库仅部分重叠。我们进行这项研究是为了让潜在用户了解新获得的OSHA数据与综管系统之间的关系，并提供有关使用OSHA测量数据进行职业暴露评估的机会和挑战的见解。我们对以前在职业健康研究中使用综管系统的情况进行了文献审查，并对最近提供的数据进行了描述性分析，并将其与综管系统数据库中最常见的抽样代理铅进行了比较。文献审查产生了29项报告使用综管系统数据的研究，但没有一项使用CEHD数据。大多数研究都集中在单一污染物上，最常分析的是二氧化硅和铅。有16项研究涉及综管系统中可能存在的偏差，主要是通过审查暴露程度与辅助信息之间的关系。尽管在各项研究和药物中均未一致报告明显程度的偏倚，但这些评估可能因选择性低报不可检测的测量值而被掩盖。CEHD数据包括1984年至2009年的1450836个记录，不包括分析空白和错误记录。78名代理人拥有超过1000份个人样本，产生了1037367份记录。与综管系统不同的是，综管系统载有行政信息（公司规模、职务说明），人力资源中心数据中的辅助信息大多是分析性的。当综管系统和CEHD测量铅合并，23 033（39.2%）记录是共同的综管系统和CEHD数据集，10 681（18.2%）记录只在综管系统，25 012（42.6%）记录只在CEHD数据库。虽然综管系统的记录仅代表其他实验室分析的数据，但只有中心的记录表明，职业安全和健康管理局检查员向综管系统报告了部分抽样结果。就铅而言，仅CEHD数据中未检出的百分比为71%，而综管系统-CEHD和仅综管系统数据集中的未检出百分比分别为42%和46%，这表明综管系统中未检出的报告存在差异。IMIS和CEHD数据集是美国多行业暴露数据的最大来源，应被视为职业暴露评估的宝贵信息来源。缺乏经验数据的偏见，充分解释OSHA数据中的非检测，复杂的怀疑差异漏报，仍然是主要的挑战，平均暴露条件的有效估计。我们主张对综管系统和CEHD数据进行更多的比较，并讨论可能在应对这些挑战方面发挥关键作用的分析战略。
: Inspectors from the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have been collecting industrial hygiene samples since 1972 to verify compliance with Permissible Exposure Limits. Starting in 1979, these measurements were computerized into the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS). In 2010, a dataset of over 1 million personal sample results analysed at OSHA's central laboratory in Salt Lake City [Chemical Exposure Health Data (CEHD)], only partially overlapping the IMIS database, was placed into public domain via the internet. We undertook this study to inform potential users about the relationship between this newly available OSHA data and IMIS and to offer insight about the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of OSHA measurement data for occupational exposure assessment.: We conducted a literature review of previous uses of IMIS in occupational health research and performed a descriptive analysis of the data recently made available and compared them to the IMIS database for lead, the most frequently sampled agent.: The literature review yielded 29 studies reporting use of IMIS data, but none using the CEHD data. Most studies focused on a single contaminant, with silica and lead being most frequently analysed. Sixteen studies addressed potential bias in IMIS, mostly by examining the association between exposure levels and ancillary information. Although no biases of appreciable magnitude were consistently reported across studies and agents, these assessments may have been obscured by selective under-reporting of non-detectable measurements. The CEHD data comprised 1 450 836 records from 1984 to 2009, not counting analytical blanks and erroneous records. Seventy eight agents with > 1000 personal samples yielded 1 037 367 records. Unlike IMIS, which contain administrative information (company size, job description), ancillary information in the CEHD data is mostly analytical. When the IMIS and CEHD measurements of lead were merged, 23 033 (39.2%) records were in common to both IMIS and CEHD datasets, 10 681 (18.2%) records were only in IMIS, and 25 012 (42.6%) records were only in the CEHD database. While IMIS-only records represent data analysed in other laboratories, CEHD-only records suggest partial reporting of sampling results by OSHA inspectors into IMIS. For lead, the percentage of non-detects in the CEHD-only data was 71% compared to 42% and 46% in the both-IMIS-CEHD and IMIS-only datasets, respectively, suggesting differential under-reporting of non-detects in IMIS.: IMIS and the CEHD datasets represent the biggest source of multi-industry exposure data in the USA and should be considered as a valuable source of information for occupational exposure assessment. The lack of empirical data on biases, adequate interpretation of non-detects in OSHA data, complicated by suspected differential under-reporting, remain the principal challenges to the valid estimation of average exposure conditions. We advocate additional comparisons between IMIS and CEHD data and discuss analytical strategies that may play a key role in meeting these challenges.