Adoption of Exposure Assessment Tools to Assist in Providing Respiratory Protection Recommendations.
Adoption of Exposure Assessment Tools to Assist in Providing Respiratory Protection Recommendations.
复制标题
采用暴露评估工具协助提供呼吸防护建议。
DOI：
10.1093/annweh/wxaa023
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Ceballos,DianaM
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Lee,EunGyung;Ceballos,DianaM
选择合适的口罩需要确定员工的最大使用浓度(MUC)除以化学物质的职业暴露限值的比率。目前的工业卫生做法通常是获得所测量的暴露分布的百分位数估计(例如第95个百分位数)，以应用为MUC。然而，还不熟悉统计学或数学方法的从业者可以选择暴露数据点最高的作为MUC，职业安全和健康管理局仍然认为这种方法是合适的。尽管如此，当只有有限的数据可用时，选择使用最高暴露数据点的呼吸器可能会导致不总是提供最充足的呼吸器。由于一些从业者不熟悉暴露评估工具，我们在这项研究中的主要目标是通过结合暴露数据和评估工具来演示选择呼吸保护的最佳过程。选择了三个用户友好的工具，IHDataAnalyst、Advanced Reach Tool和IHSTAT，以演示如何在选择呼吸器时使用不同类型的工具输出。开发了一个决策逻辑来帮助用户导航不同数据输入的组合。在四个不同工作场所收集的个人全班暴露数据被用来描述当将最大暴露数据点和工具的输出与化学品的暴露限值进行比较时产生的四种不同结果。结果各不相同，从在选择呼吸器建议时的“高置信度”(或最终决定)到“低置信度”(或表明需要更多数据)。总而言之，系统地采用暴露数据和评估工具的组合可以增加从业者在从有限的暴露数据集中选择呼吸器时的决策信心。这些建议的指导方针将引导从业者采取良好的工业卫生做法。
Selecting a proper respirator requires determining the ratio of an employee’s maximum use concentration (MUC) divided by the occupational exposure limit of a chemical. Current industrial hygiene practice often is to obtain a percentile estimate (e.g. 95th) of the measured exposure distribution to apply as the MUC. However, practitioners who are not yet familiar with statistical or mathematical approaches may choose the highest exposure data point as the MUC, a method that is still considered appropriate by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Nonetheless, choosing a respirator using the highest exposure data point when only limited data are available may result in not always providing the most adequate respirator. Because some practitioners are not familiar with exposure assessment tools, our primary goal in this study was to demonstrate the best process when selecting respiratory protection by using a combination of exposure data and assessment tools. Three user-friendly tools, IHDataAnalyst, Advanced REACH Tool, and IHSTAT, were selected to demonstrate how to use different types of tool outputs when choosing a respirator. A decision logic was developed to help users navigate the combining of different data inputs. Personal full-shift exposure data collected in four different workplaces were used to describe four different outcomes generated when the maximum exposure data point and the tool’s output are compared with the exposure limit of the chemical. Outcomes varied, from determinations of ‘high confidence’ (or final decision) to ‘low confidence’ (or indicating more data are needed) in the selection of a respirator recommendation. In conclusion, systematically adopting the combination of exposure data and assessment tools could increase practitioners’ confidence in decision-making when choosing respirators from a limited exposure data set. These suggested guidelines will lead practitioners toward good industrial hygiene practices.