Beliefs and practices in the assessment of workplace pollutants.

Raffaella Bruzzi, David Vernez, Pierre-Olivier Droz, Alice De Batz
{"title":"Beliefs and practices in the assessment of workplace pollutants.","authors":"Raffaella Bruzzi,&nbsp;David Vernez,&nbsp;Pierre-Olivier Droz,&nbsp;Alice De Batz","doi":"10.1007/s00038-005-0003-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A survey was undertaken among Swiss occupational hygienists and other professionals to identify the different exposure assessment methods used, the contextual parameters observed and the uses, difficulties and possible developments of exposure models for field application.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A questionnaire was mailed to 121 occupational hygienists, all members of the Swiss Occupational Hygiene Society. A shorter questionnaire was also sent to registered occupational physicians and selected safety specialists. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The response rate for occupational hygienists was 60%. The so-called expert judgement appeared to be the most widely used method, but its efficiency and reliability were both judged with very low scores. Long-term sampling was perceived as the most efficient and reliable method. Various determinants of exposure, such as emission rate and work activity, were often considered important, even though they were not included in the exposure assessment processes. Near field local phenomena determinants were also judged important for operator exposure estimation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Exposure models should be improved to integrate factors which are more easily accessible to practitioners. Descriptors of emission and local phenomena should also be included.</p>","PeriodicalId":21877,"journal":{"name":"Sozial- und Praventivmedizin","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1007/s00038-005-0003-y","citationCount":"7","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Sozial- und Praventivmedizin","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-005-0003-y","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

Abstract

Objectives: A survey was undertaken among Swiss occupational hygienists and other professionals to identify the different exposure assessment methods used, the contextual parameters observed and the uses, difficulties and possible developments of exposure models for field application.

Methods: A questionnaire was mailed to 121 occupational hygienists, all members of the Swiss Occupational Hygiene Society. A shorter questionnaire was also sent to registered occupational physicians and selected safety specialists. Descriptive statistics and multivariate analyses were performed.

Results: The response rate for occupational hygienists was 60%. The so-called expert judgement appeared to be the most widely used method, but its efficiency and reliability were both judged with very low scores. Long-term sampling was perceived as the most efficient and reliable method. Various determinants of exposure, such as emission rate and work activity, were often considered important, even though they were not included in the exposure assessment processes. Near field local phenomena determinants were also judged important for operator exposure estimation.

Conclusion: Exposure models should be improved to integrate factors which are more easily accessible to practitioners. Descriptors of emission and local phenomena should also be included.

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
评估工作场所污染物的信念和做法。
目的:在瑞士职业卫生学家和其他专业人员中进行了一项调查,以确定所使用的不同暴露评估方法,观察到的背景参数以及现场应用暴露模型的用途,困难和可能的发展。方法:对121名瑞士职业卫生学会会员进行问卷调查。还向注册职业医生和选定的安全专家发送了一份较短的问卷。进行描述性统计和多变量分析。结果:职业卫生师的回复率为60%。所谓的专家判断似乎是最广泛使用的方法,但其效率和可靠性的评分都很低。长期抽样被认为是最有效和可靠的方法。暴露的各种决定因素,如排放率和工作活动,往往被认为是重要的,尽管它们没有列入暴露评估过程。近场局部现象的决定因素也被认为是操作员暴露估计的重要因素。结论:暴露模型有待改进,以整合从业者更易理解的因素。还应包括对排放和当地现象的描述。
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
Argemone mexicana L. Phytoaromathérapie de l’herpès Melaleuca alternifolia Le carapa, un arbre dont on ne peut ignorer les bienfaits (Guyane française) D’où vient la phytothérapie et vers où tend-elle ?
×
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