Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984677
D. Paustenbach
Over the past 50 years significant strides have been made in reducing occupational exposure to airborne chemicals. To a large extent, the impetus behind the reductions has been the identification of presumably safe levels of exposure, or occupational exposure limits (OELs). Most of the reduction in exposure has been to chemicals such as hepatotoxins, neurotoxins, nephrotoxins, and carcinogens that cause frank toxic effects. Recently, however, a number of industrial hygiene and occupational medicine initiatives have sought to identify acceptable levels of exposure to sensory irritants and reduce exposure to this class of chemicals. This article presents an overview of the field with emphasis on the work presented at two symposia sponsored by the Chemical Manufacturers Association: "How Do We Set an Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) for Irritation?" (1998) at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition and "Respiratory Tract Irritation and Olfaction Conference" (1997). The two symposia reviewed clinical and experimental methods used to assess odor and sensory irritation, to increase understanding of the research needed to establish OELs for sensory irritants, and to discuss how to use this information to identify appropriate values. The symposia illustrated that research in this area is evolving quickly and that there is already sufficient understanding to permit scientists to identify chemicals likely to be sensory irritants. Further, there appears to be an ample number of research methods for identification of airborne concentrations that should protect most workers. This article summarizes some of the key points raised at these symposia and suggests areas deserving of future study.
{"title":"Approaches and considerations for setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants: report of recent symposia.","authors":"D. Paustenbach","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984677","url":null,"abstract":"Over the past 50 years significant strides have been made in reducing occupational exposure to airborne chemicals. To a large extent, the impetus behind the reductions has been the identification of presumably safe levels of exposure, or occupational exposure limits (OELs). Most of the reduction in exposure has been to chemicals such as hepatotoxins, neurotoxins, nephrotoxins, and carcinogens that cause frank toxic effects. Recently, however, a number of industrial hygiene and occupational medicine initiatives have sought to identify acceptable levels of exposure to sensory irritants and reduce exposure to this class of chemicals. This article presents an overview of the field with emphasis on the work presented at two symposia sponsored by the Chemical Manufacturers Association: \"How Do We Set an Occupational Exposure Limit (OEL) for Irritation?\" (1998) at the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition and \"Respiratory Tract Irritation and Olfaction Conference\" (1997). The two symposia reviewed clinical and experimental methods used to assess odor and sensory irritation, to increase understanding of the research needed to establish OELs for sensory irritants, and to discuss how to use this information to identify appropriate values. The symposia illustrated that research in this area is evolving quickly and that there is already sufficient understanding to permit scientists to identify chemicals likely to be sensory irritants. Further, there appears to be an ample number of research methods for identification of airborne concentrations that should protect most workers. This article summarizes some of the key points raised at these symposia and suggests areas deserving of future study.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"76256658","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984674
M. Schweder, D. Underhill
A number of different protocols have been put forth for measuring reverse diffusion from diffusive samplers. The basic concept is that reverse diffusion tests, depending as they do on basic laws of mass transfer, are not independent of one another, but may give general information about the limits to the possible change that can occur if the conditions to measure reverse diffusion are changed. Laboratory measurements of the reverse diffusion of vinyl chloride, using 3M and SKC diffusive samplers, following both the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the European Union test protocols, support the mathematical analysis developed in this article. An important conclusion is that if in following the NIOSH protocol a diffusive sampler loses 10% of its analyte over a period of 4 hours, then the maximum loss expected from a sampler allowed to back-diffuse for 8 hours is 19%.
{"title":"The use of reverse diffusion to validate the performance of diffusive samplers.","authors":"M. Schweder, D. Underhill","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984674","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984674","url":null,"abstract":"A number of different protocols have been put forth for measuring reverse diffusion from diffusive samplers. The basic concept is that reverse diffusion tests, depending as they do on basic laws of mass transfer, are not independent of one another, but may give general information about the limits to the possible change that can occur if the conditions to measure reverse diffusion are changed. Laboratory measurements of the reverse diffusion of vinyl chloride, using 3M and SKC diffusive samplers, following both the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) and the European Union test protocols, support the mathematical analysis developed in this article. An important conclusion is that if in following the NIOSH protocol a diffusive sampler loses 10% of its analyte over a period of 4 hours, then the maximum loss expected from a sampler allowed to back-diffuse for 8 hours is 19%.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"85574882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984680
M. Kendal-Reed
This article describes recent research on sensory irritants that should prove helpful to setting occupational exposure limits (OELs) for this class of chemicals. In addition, background information is provided to assist in recognizing the relevance and importance of this type of work. Research conducted by Dr. Steven Youngentob and others addresses the recovery of olfactory function following exposure to high concentrations of sensory irritants. Their research has combined several different experimental methods to gain insight on how olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) are replaced. Other important work relevant to setting OELs has been conducted by Professor Gerd Kobal, who has relied on human brain imaging during chemosensory stimulation. Commentary on these two approaches is followed by suggestions on how to address the relative lack of detailed normative information on human responses to odors and irritants.
{"title":"Approaches to understanding chemosensory responses: new directions and new caveats.","authors":"M. Kendal-Reed","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984680","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984680","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes recent research on sensory irritants that should prove helpful to setting occupational exposure limits (OELs) for this class of chemicals. In addition, background information is provided to assist in recognizing the relevance and importance of this type of work. Research conducted by Dr. Steven Youngentob and others addresses the recovery of olfactory function following exposure to high concentrations of sensory irritants. Their research has combined several different experimental methods to gain insight on how olfactory receptor neurons (ORNs) are replaced. Other important work relevant to setting OELs has been conducted by Professor Gerd Kobal, who has relied on human brain imaging during chemosensory stimulation. Commentary on these two approaches is followed by suggestions on how to address the relative lack of detailed normative information on human responses to odors and irritants.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83881029","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984673
S. Guffey, D. W. Booth
This study determined the efficacy of specific methods of identifying and locating obstructions and alterations to industrial exhaust ventilation systems under challenging conditions when measurement errors were minimized. Two traditional screening methods were evaluated: (1) two variations of the hood static pressure method and (2) a severely modified version of the "Check-out" method. Three proposed pressure ratio methods also were evaluated and compared with the traditional methods. Two full-sized experimental ventilation systems in two ventilation laboratories were tested. One system had five branch ducts, the other had eight, with branch duct diameters ranging from 4 to 7 inches. To create challenge, each system received multiple alterations and, in some cases, the airflow level was changed throughout the system. For each round of measurements (1) different combinations of alterations were made to some ducts; (2) on a given system, relevant pressures and flows were determined for each duct using calibrated pressure sensors and standard pitot tubes held in a traversing device; and (3) the numbers of true and false positives and negatives for each screening method were computed for a broad range of threshold values. Sensitivities were plotted against the false positive rates for all thresholds for each method. The area (AROC) under the resulting "receiver operating characteristic curves" was computed for each method. Variability was simulated using bootstrap methods to determine significance of differences. In addition, the thresholds that would achieve 10 and 20% false positive rates were determined for each method and the accompanying sensitivities compared. The pressure ratio methods detected nearly all nontrivial obstructions with nearly zero false positives (AROC=1). The direct pressure comparison methods showed substantially inferior performance for the substantial challenges presented in these tests. The latter may be useful under less challenging conditions but were of dubious utility in locating obstructions under the ranges of conditions tested.
{"title":"An evaluation of industrial ventilation troubleshooting methods in experimental systems.","authors":"S. Guffey, D. W. Booth","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984673","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984673","url":null,"abstract":"This study determined the efficacy of specific methods of identifying and locating obstructions and alterations to industrial exhaust ventilation systems under challenging conditions when measurement errors were minimized. Two traditional screening methods were evaluated: (1) two variations of the hood static pressure method and (2) a severely modified version of the \"Check-out\" method. Three proposed pressure ratio methods also were evaluated and compared with the traditional methods. Two full-sized experimental ventilation systems in two ventilation laboratories were tested. One system had five branch ducts, the other had eight, with branch duct diameters ranging from 4 to 7 inches. To create challenge, each system received multiple alterations and, in some cases, the airflow level was changed throughout the system. For each round of measurements (1) different combinations of alterations were made to some ducts; (2) on a given system, relevant pressures and flows were determined for each duct using calibrated pressure sensors and standard pitot tubes held in a traversing device; and (3) the numbers of true and false positives and negatives for each screening method were computed for a broad range of threshold values. Sensitivities were plotted against the false positive rates for all thresholds for each method. The area (AROC) under the resulting \"receiver operating characteristic curves\" was computed for each method. Variability was simulated using bootstrap methods to determine significance of differences. In addition, the thresholds that would achieve 10 and 20% false positive rates were determined for each method and the accompanying sensitivities compared. The pressure ratio methods detected nearly all nontrivial obstructions with nearly zero false positives (AROC=1). The direct pressure comparison methods showed substantially inferior performance for the substantial challenges presented in these tests. The latter may be useful under less challenging conditions but were of dubious utility in locating obstructions under the ranges of conditions tested.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"83629286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984678
P. Dalton
This article describes the fundamentals of olfaction and irritation perception and the dominant psychophysical methods for the assessment of olfaction and respiratory tract irritation. It also discusses factors that determine the olfactory and irritant response (ranging from the physicochemical properties of the stimulus to the physiological and cognitive characteristics of the individual). Because the vast majority of volatile chemicals stimulate the olfactory system at concentrations well below that at which they will elicit trigeminal activation, the evaluation of irritation from volatiles is often confounded by the perception of odor. Several methods have been used for studying the perception of irritation, without the influence of olfaction. The perception and reports of acute adverse effects of odor, annoyance, and irritation from volatile chemicals have multiple determinants. Understanding the perceptual impact of chemicals under environmentally realistic conditions requires attending to both the sensory and the psychological impact of those exposures. The review, which is largely based on presentations given by Dr. Richard Doty and Dr. William Cain, concludes by discussing the importance of the psychophysical approach, which considers physiochemical, subject, experimental, and cognitive/ psychological factors, for research in the chemical senses.
{"title":"Psychophysical methods in the study of olfaction and respiratory tract irritation.","authors":"P. Dalton","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984678","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984678","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes the fundamentals of olfaction and irritation perception and the dominant psychophysical methods for the assessment of olfaction and respiratory tract irritation. It also discusses factors that determine the olfactory and irritant response (ranging from the physicochemical properties of the stimulus to the physiological and cognitive characteristics of the individual). Because the vast majority of volatile chemicals stimulate the olfactory system at concentrations well below that at which they will elicit trigeminal activation, the evaluation of irritation from volatiles is often confounded by the perception of odor. Several methods have been used for studying the perception of irritation, without the influence of olfaction. The perception and reports of acute adverse effects of odor, annoyance, and irritation from volatile chemicals have multiple determinants. Understanding the perceptual impact of chemicals under environmentally realistic conditions requires attending to both the sensory and the psychological impact of those exposures. The review, which is largely based on presentations given by Dr. Richard Doty and Dr. William Cain, concludes by discussing the importance of the psychophysical approach, which considers physiochemical, subject, experimental, and cognitive/ psychological factors, for research in the chemical senses.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"79571523","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984679
S. K. Kjaergaar, M. Hodgson
Sensory irritant responses to chemical exposures are measured by a variety of methods; however, studies can be influenced from biases associated with study design and subject responses. This article reviews the different methods used to quantitate irritation. These methods primarily focus on eye and nasal mucosal irritation. Although methods to evaluate mouth, throat mucosal, and dermal irritation are also relevant, they are seldom used in actual practice. Measurements for eye irritation include tear film stability, epithelial damage, foam formation, blinking frequency, tear flow, inflammation, and hyperemia. Methods for detecting nasal mucosa irritation include measuring swelling of the nasal mucosa, peak airflows through the nose, acoustic rhinometry, and rhinostereometry, which measures thickness of the anterior nasal turbinate. Questionnaires are useful for defining a set of symptoms in an attempt to characterize dose-response relationships from controlled exposure studies or field studies, to compare rates of events in field studies, or to screen for disease. However, it is important to consider carefully the study design, goal of utilization, and constraints surrounding their application. Whichever method is used in medical surveillance or to evaluate effectiveness of industrial hygiene or engineering controls in preventing irritation effects from chemical exposure, the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of the irritation measurements are important factors in interpreting the results. This article reviews these various issues and offers some advice.
{"title":"The assessment of irritation using clinical methods and questionnaires.","authors":"S. K. Kjaergaar, M. Hodgson","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984679","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984679","url":null,"abstract":"Sensory irritant responses to chemical exposures are measured by a variety of methods; however, studies can be influenced from biases associated with study design and subject responses. This article reviews the different methods used to quantitate irritation. These methods primarily focus on eye and nasal mucosal irritation. Although methods to evaluate mouth, throat mucosal, and dermal irritation are also relevant, they are seldom used in actual practice. Measurements for eye irritation include tear film stability, epithelial damage, foam formation, blinking frequency, tear flow, inflammation, and hyperemia. Methods for detecting nasal mucosa irritation include measuring swelling of the nasal mucosa, peak airflows through the nose, acoustic rhinometry, and rhinostereometry, which measures thickness of the anterior nasal turbinate. Questionnaires are useful for defining a set of symptoms in an attempt to characterize dose-response relationships from controlled exposure studies or field studies, to compare rates of events in field studies, or to screen for disease. However, it is important to consider carefully the study design, goal of utilization, and constraints surrounding their application. Whichever method is used in medical surveillance or to evaluate effectiveness of industrial hygiene or engineering controls in preventing irritation effects from chemical exposure, the sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value of the irritation measurements are important factors in interpreting the results. This article reviews these various issues and offers some advice.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82148879","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984683
V. Feron, J. Art, J. Mojet
This article describes how scientists in the Netherlands set occupational exposure limits (OELs) for sensory irritants. When they tackle this issue, a number of key questions need to be answered. For example, did the studies indeed measure sensory irritation and not cytotoxicity? When the irritant is an odorant, can interference of olfactory stimulation be excluded? In the case of subjective measurements, can psychological irritation be excluded? When adaptation is an issue, did the studies indeed measure adaptation and not habituation? When OELs are established in the Netherlands, each of these issues is carefully addressed before a value is suggested. When setting an OEL in the Netherlands, human data carry more weight than animal data of comparable quality. As in the United States, documentation for the recommended OEL is written and a discussion of all available relevant and reliable data culminating in the selection of the key study for deriving the health-based recommended occupational exposure limit is provided. Special effort is dedicated to reconciling differences between the animal and human data. If the toxicological database is considered to be inadequate, the committee acknowledges this limitation and will not recommend a limit value due to insufficient data.
{"title":"Approach to setting occupational exposure limits for sensory irritants in The Netherlands.","authors":"V. Feron, J. Art, J. Mojet","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984683","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984683","url":null,"abstract":"This article describes how scientists in the Netherlands set occupational exposure limits (OELs) for sensory irritants. When they tackle this issue, a number of key questions need to be answered. For example, did the studies indeed measure sensory irritation and not cytotoxicity? When the irritant is an odorant, can interference of olfactory stimulation be excluded? In the case of subjective measurements, can psychological irritation be excluded? When adaptation is an issue, did the studies indeed measure adaptation and not habituation? When OELs are established in the Netherlands, each of these issues is carefully addressed before a value is suggested. When setting an OEL in the Netherlands, human data carry more weight than animal data of comparable quality. As in the United States, documentation for the recommended OEL is written and a discussion of all available relevant and reliable data culminating in the selection of the key study for deriving the health-based recommended occupational exposure limit is provided. Special effort is dedicated to reconciling differences between the animal and human data. If the toxicological database is considered to be inadequate, the committee acknowledges this limitation and will not recommend a limit value due to insufficient data.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77474340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984667
M. W. Ogden
{"title":"The origin of a nicotine detection method.","authors":"M. W. Ogden","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984667","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984667","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"77752207","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984681
P. Dalton
Although animal models of sensory irritation have led to the development of useful assays for evaluating the potency of chemical irritants, the importance of conducting human exposure studies to model and understand the human response to sensory irritants cannot be minimized. In recent years a series of tests have been developed for humans that can be safely conducted and that can provide excellent data on which to base occupational exposure limits. This article delineates the major issues involved in the evaluations of sensory irritation in humans. Among these issues are the differences between odor and irritation, irritation and slight toxicity, adaptation and habituation, as well as personal expectation about discomfort and the reported irritation. The article also describes psychophysiological and electrophysiological methods for assessing sensory irritation. Some of the possible confounders that can influence the results of human tests involving sensory irritants are addressed.
{"title":"Evaluating the human response to sensory irritation: implications for setting occupational exposure limits.","authors":"P. Dalton","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984681","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984681","url":null,"abstract":"Although animal models of sensory irritation have led to the development of useful assays for evaluating the potency of chemical irritants, the importance of conducting human exposure studies to model and understand the human response to sensory irritants cannot be minimized. In recent years a series of tests have been developed for humans that can be safely conducted and that can provide excellent data on which to base occupational exposure limits. This article delineates the major issues involved in the evaluations of sensory irritation in humans. Among these issues are the differences between odor and irritation, irritation and slight toxicity, adaptation and habituation, as well as personal expectation about discomfort and the reported irritation. The article also describes psychophysiological and electrophysiological methods for assessing sensory irritation. Some of the possible confounders that can influence the results of human tests involving sensory irritants are addressed.","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"82794562","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2001-11-01DOI: 10.1080/15298660108984684
F. Grunder
{"title":"PAT Program Report: background and current status.","authors":"F. Grunder","doi":"10.1080/15298660108984684","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1080/15298660108984684","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":7449,"journal":{"name":"AIHAJ : a journal for the science of occupational and environmental health and safety","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2001-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"84136158","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：