Estimating Occupational Exposure to Asbestos in Australia.

M. Kottek, D. Kilpatrick
{"title":"Estimating Occupational Exposure to Asbestos in Australia.","authors":"M. Kottek, D. Kilpatrick","doi":"10.1093/annhyg/mew002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"We read with interest the job-exposure matrix ( JEM) by van Oyen et al. (2015), a study to which we contributed unpublished dust measurements. We wish to make a number of observations regarding the paper. We begin by noting that exposure limits for asbestos were first recommended in Australia well before 1964. In 1945, the State of Victoria adopted a ceiling standard of 5 million particles per cubic foot (mppcf) into regulations (Victoria, 1945), while the 5 mppcf standard was adopted nationally [as an 8-h time-weighted average (TWA)] in 1960 (National Health and Medical Research Council, 1960). The various Australian states adopted regulations based on the membrane filter haphazardly over the 1970s. We agree with the authors that the estimated annual average exposures in AsbJEM appear very low, and that there is some similarity to full-shift exposures that can be found elsewhere in the literature. However, we also take the view that the results of any exposure reconstruction should ‘make sense’ (Armstrong et al., 2009). In our opinion, the exposure estimates for some of the job titles in AsbJEM do not make sense, in that the cumulative exposure for a lifetime of work in some job titles is not consistent with the many cases of asbestos-related disease we have encountered in workers with those job titles. For example, according to AsbJEM: the cumulative exposure for a boilermaker who spent their entire working life in the power supply industry Editorial Note. Letters to the Editor are peer reviewed to ensure that the arguments are reasonable and clearly expressed. However, letters may express a particular opinion rather than a balanced interpretation. Authors of papers commented on are invited to reply, but neither the journal nor peer reviewers should be assumed to support the arguments made.","PeriodicalId":342592,"journal":{"name":"The Annals of occupational hygiene","volume":"60 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The Annals of occupational hygiene","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/annhyg/mew002","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

Abstract

We read with interest the job-exposure matrix ( JEM) by van Oyen et al. (2015), a study to which we contributed unpublished dust measurements. We wish to make a number of observations regarding the paper. We begin by noting that exposure limits for asbestos were first recommended in Australia well before 1964. In 1945, the State of Victoria adopted a ceiling standard of 5 million particles per cubic foot (mppcf) into regulations (Victoria, 1945), while the 5 mppcf standard was adopted nationally [as an 8-h time-weighted average (TWA)] in 1960 (National Health and Medical Research Council, 1960). The various Australian states adopted regulations based on the membrane filter haphazardly over the 1970s. We agree with the authors that the estimated annual average exposures in AsbJEM appear very low, and that there is some similarity to full-shift exposures that can be found elsewhere in the literature. However, we also take the view that the results of any exposure reconstruction should ‘make sense’ (Armstrong et al., 2009). In our opinion, the exposure estimates for some of the job titles in AsbJEM do not make sense, in that the cumulative exposure for a lifetime of work in some job titles is not consistent with the many cases of asbestos-related disease we have encountered in workers with those job titles. For example, according to AsbJEM: the cumulative exposure for a boilermaker who spent their entire working life in the power supply industry Editorial Note. Letters to the Editor are peer reviewed to ensure that the arguments are reasonable and clearly expressed. However, letters may express a particular opinion rather than a balanced interpretation. Authors of papers commented on are invited to reply, but neither the journal nor peer reviewers should be assumed to support the arguments made.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
估计澳大利亚职业接触石棉。
我们饶有兴趣地阅读了van Oyen等人(2015)的工作暴露矩阵(JEM),我们为该研究贡献了未发表的粉尘测量数据。我们愿就该文件提出一些看法。我们首先要指出,早在1964年之前,澳大利亚就首次提出了石棉的接触限值。1945年,维多利亚州将每立方英尺500万颗粒(mppcf)的上限标准纳入法规(维多利亚州,1945年),而5 mppcf标准于1960年在全国被采用[作为8小时时间加权平均值(TWA)](国家卫生和医学研究委员会,1960年)。20世纪70年代,澳大利亚各州随意采用了基于膜过滤器的法规。我们同意作者的观点,即AsbJEM中估计的年平均暴露量似乎很低,并且与文献中其他地方的全轮班暴露有一些相似之处。然而,我们也认为,任何暴露重建的结果都应该“有意义”(Armstrong et al., 2009)。在我们看来,AsbJEM中某些职位的暴露估计是没有意义的,因为在某些职位上工作一生的累积暴露与我们在这些职位的工人中遇到的许多石棉相关疾病病例不一致。例如,根据AsbJEM的说法:一个在供电行业度过了整个工作生涯的锅炉制造商的累积暴露。给编辑的信件经过同行评审,以确保论点合理且表达清楚。然而,信件可能表达一个特定的意见,而不是一个平衡的解释。被评论论文的作者被邀请回复,但期刊和同行评议人都不应该被认为支持所提出的论点。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Response to Article by Prof. Hans Kromhout, Hygiene Without Numbers. The Validity and Applicability of Using a Generic Exposure Assessment Model for Occupational Exposure to Nano-Objects and Their Aggregates and Agglomerates. Occupational Exposure to Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons in Polish Coke Plant Workers. A New Miniature Respirable Sampler for In-mask Sampling: Part 2-Tests Performed Inside the Mask. When Are Risk Analyses on Job Titles Informative?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1