Annals of Occupational Hygiene 

About: Annals of Occupational Hygiene is an academic journal published by Oxford University Press. The journal publishes majorly in the area(s): Asbestos & Occupational hygiene. It has an ISSN identifier of 0003-4878. Over the lifetime, 3727 publications have been published receiving 84754 citations.

Bioaerosol Health Effects and Exposure Assessment: Progress and Prospects

Abstract: Exposures to bioaerosols in the occupational environment are associated with a wide range of health effects with major public health impact, including infectious diseases, acute toxic effects, allergies and cancer. Respiratory symptoms and lung function impairment are the most widely studied and probably among the most important bioaerosol-associated health effects. In addition to these adverse health effects some protective effects of microbial exposure on atopy and atopic conditions has also been suggested. New industrial activities have emerged in recent years in which exposures to bioaerosols can be abundant, e.g. the waste recycling and composting industry, biotechnology industries producing highly purified enzymes and the detergent and food industries that make use of these enzymes. Dose-response relationships have not been established for most biological agents and knowledge about threshold values is sparse. Exposure limits are available for some contaminants, e.g. wood dust, subtilisins (bacterial enzymes) and flour dust. Exposure limits for bacterial endotoxin have been proposed. Risk assessment is seriously hampered by the lack of valid quantitative exposure assessment methods. Traditional culture methods to quantify microbial exposures have proven to be of limited use. Non-culture methods and assessment methods for microbial constituents [e.g. allergens, endotoxin, beta(1-->3)-glucans, fungal extracellular polysaccharides] appear more successful; however, experience with these methods is generally limited. Therefore, more research is needed to establish better exposure assessment tools and validate newly developed methods. Other important areas that require further research include: potential protective effects of microbial exposures on atopy and atopic diseases, inter-individual susceptibility for biological exposures, interactions of bioaerosols with non-biological agents and other potential health effects such as skin and neurological conditions and birth effects.

Exposure-Related Health Effects of Silver and Silver Compounds: A Review

Abstract: A critical review of studies examining exposures to the various forms of silver was conducted to determine if some silver species are more toxic than others. The impetus behind conducting this review is that several occupational exposure limits and guidelines exist for silver, but the values for each depend on the form of silver as well as the individual agency making the recommendations. For instance, the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists has established separate threshold limit values for metallic silver (0.1 mg/m 3 ) and soluble compounds of silver (0.01 mg/m 3 ). On the other hand, the permissible exposure limit (PEL) recommended by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and the Mine Safety and Health Administration and the recommended exposure limit set by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health is 0.01 mg/m 3 for all forms of silver. The adverse effects of chronic exposure to silver are a permanent bluish-gray discoloration of the skin (argyria) or eyes(argyrosis).Moststudiesdiscusscasesofargyriaandargyrosisthathaveresulted primarily from exposure to the soluble forms of silver. Besides argyria and argyrosis, exposure to soluble silver compounds may produce other toxiceffects, including liver and kidneydamage, irritation of the eyes, skin, respiratory, and intestinal tract, and changes in blood cells. Metallic silver appears to pose minimal risk to health. The current occupational exposure limits do not reflect the apparent difference in toxicities between soluble and metallic silver; thus, many researchers have recommended that separate PELs be established.

The quantitative risks of mesothelioma and lung cancer in relation to asbestos exposure

Abstract: Mortality reports on asbestos exposed cohorts which gave information on exposure levels from which (as a minimum) a cohort average cumulative exposure could be estimated were reviewed. At exposure levels seen in occupational cohorts it is concluded that the exposure specific risk of mesothelioma from the three principal commercial asbestos types is broadly in the ratio 1:100:500 for chrysotile, amosite and crocidolite respectively. For lung cancer the conclusions are less clear cut. Cohorts exposed only to crocidolite or amosite record similar exposure specific risk levels (around 5% excess lung cancer per f/ml.yr); but chrysotile exposed cohorts show a less consistent picture, with a clear discrepancy between the mortality experience of a cohort of xhrysotile textile workers in Carolina and the Quebec miners cohort. Taking account of the excess risk recorded by cohorts with mixed fibre exposures (generally<1%), the Carolina experience looks uptypically high. It is suggested that a best estimate lung cancer risk for chrysotile alone would be 0.1%, with a highest reasonable estimate of 0.5%. The risk differential between chrysotile and the two amphibole fibres for lunc cancer is thus between 1:10 and 1:50. Examination of the inter-study dose response relationship for the amphibole fibres suggests a non-linear relationship for all three cancer endpoints (pleural and peritoneal mesotheliomas, and lung cancer). The peritoneal mesothelioma risk is proportional to the square of cumulative exposure, lung cancer risk lies between a linear and square relationship and pleural mesothelioma seems to rise less than linearly with cumulative dose. Although these non-linear relationships provide a best fit ot the data, statistical and other uncertainties mean that a linear relationship remains arguable for pleural and lung tumours (but not or peritoneal tumours). Based on these considerations, and a discussion fo the associated uncertainties, a series of quantified risk summary statements for different elvels of cumulative exposure are presented.

A comprehensive evaluation of within- and between-worker components of occupational exposure to chemical agents.

Abstract: A database of approximately 20,000 chemical exposures has been constructed in close co-operation between the School of Public Health of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the Department of Air Pollution of the Wageningen Agricultural University. A special feature of this database is that only multiple measurements of exposure from the same workers were included. This enabled estimation of within- and between-worker variance components of occupational exposure to chemical agents throughout industry. Most of the groups were not uniformly exposed as is generally assumed by occupational hygienists. In fact only 42 out of a total of 165 groups (25%), based on job title and factory, had 95% of individual mean exposures within a two-fold range. On the contrary, about 30% of the groups had 95% of individual mean exposures in a range which was greater than 10-fold. Environmental and production factors were shown to have distinct influences on the within-worker (day-to-day) variability, but not on the between-worker variability. Groups working outdoors and those working without local exhaust ventilation showed more day-to-day variability than groups working indoors and those working with local exhaust ventilation. Groups consisting of mobile workers, those working with an intermittent process and those where the source of contamination was either local or mobile also showed great day-to-day variability. In a multivariate regression model, environment (indoors-outdoors) and type of process (continuous-intermittent) explained 41% of the variability in the within-worker component of variance. Another model, in which only type of process (continuous-intermittent) had a significant effect, explained only 13% of the variability in the between-worker component of variance.