Search

Objectives The aim of this study was to create a quantitative job-exposure matrix (JEM) for noise including a large set of measurements for the Swedish workforce, a detailed exposure-level assessment, spanning over an extensive time period from 1970 to 2014. Methods The JEM was developed by 2 teams, each with an experienced occupational hygienist and an occupational safety engineer. Each pair assessed the exposure using measurements performed and reported by occupational hygienists, occupational safety engineers, or similar, from 1970 to 2014. The measurements included either the original LAeq(8h) measurements or an LAeq(8h) levels calculated from partial measurements of the working day, provided that the measurement targeted a regular task usually performed during a full workday. The collection of measurement reports was done in 2008 and 2012 by contacting clinics working in the area of occupational health or occupational safety engineers and their submitted reports were added to our own material. Noise exposure assessments were inserted at the appropriate time period for the relevant job family. The final matrix was developed in a consensus procedure and the validity was investigated by comparison of the 2 team's individual results. Results The noise JEM contains 321 job families with information regarding occupational noise from 1970 to 2014. The time-period label has a 5-yr scale starting in 1970. The estimated average 8 h (TWA) noise level in decibels [dB(A)] for every job family and 5-yr period was coded as 1: <70 dB(A), 2: 70 to 74 dB(A), 3: 75 to 79 dB(A), 4: 80 to 84 dB(A) or 5: 85(+) dB(A). The validation showed no systematic difference in relative position and very high agreement in the ordering of paired ordinal classifications. The JEM has also successfully been applied in several epidemiological studies. Conclusions We present a JEM for occupational noise using Swedish data from 1970 to 2014 with a higher degree of sensitivity in assessed noise exposure compared with the previously existing version. Repeated application of the JEM, in epidemiological studies, has shown consistent results and contributed to yielding important findings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims The main aim of this study was to assess dermal exposure to polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and airway exposure to PAHs, volatile organic compounds (VOCs; benzene and 1,3-butadiene), and particles among firefighters (FFs) and police forensic investigators (PFIs) in Sweden. Methods Active (pump with a filter and sorbent tube) and passive (polyurethane foam -cyl and perkin elmer carbopack-tube) personal air sampling and dermal tape stripping (wrist and collar bone) were performed on seven FF team leaders during training fires and nine PFIs investigating the aftermath of live fire events. In addition, passive personal air sampling was performed on eight FF team leaders during live emergency fires. PAHs and VOCs were analysed using high-resolution gas chromatography low-resolution mass spectrometry. The mass concentration of total dust (particles) was determined using standard gravimetric methods. Results The air samples showed that the exposure to PAHs, benzene, 1,3-butadiene, and particles was below Swedish occupational exposure limits (OELs). Naphthalene was the predominant PAH in all air samples. Benzene and 1,3-butadiene were more abundant in live emergency fires, which caused higher exposures than the other studied situations. Both gaseous- and particle-associated PAHs were present on skin. The wrists seemed to be less well protected than the collarbone area. Conclusions FFs and PFIs are exposed to several hazardous compounds during their work. Air exposures varied considerably between working scenarios. The observed exposures were substantially higher than urban background levels but well below Swedish OELs. The measured dermal PAH exposures were comparable to previously reported doses for US FFs but lower than the exposures reported for Swedish chimney sweeps. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aims: The aim of this study was to measure the exposure to total dust, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and nitrogen dioxide (NO2) of kitchen workers in four different types of restaurants in Sweden (Large scale, European, Fast food, and Asian). Methods: One hundred full work-shift (8 h) personal exposure samples were taken from 36 workers in 21 commercial kitchens. Most workers were sampled three times. Mass concentration of total dust was determined using standard gravimetric methods; the filters were analyzed for their content of particulate PAHs. Gas-phase PAHs were sampled using adsorbent tubes (XAD-II) placed after the filter and analyzed with high-resolution gas chromatography/low-resolution mass spectrometry. NO2 was measured using passive dosimeters. Stationary measurements in the kitchen were made in parallel with the personal sampling. Results: Group geometric mean concentrations for personal exposure to total dust ranged from 77 µg m-3 (Fast food) to 320 µg m-3 (European kitchens). Individual exposure samples of total dust ranged from ~40 to 3900 µg m-3. In the Large-scale and European kitchens, the time spent frying was identified as a determinant increasing personal exposure to total dust. The within-worker variance dominated the exposure variability of total dust in Large-scale and European kitchens, whereas between-worker variance dominated in Fast food and Asian kitchens. Exposure to total PAHs was statistically significantly higher for workers in the Asian kitchens. Also, exposure to NO2 was higher in the Asian kitchens, which all used gas stoves for cooking. The stationary measurements of total dust showed lower levels than personal exposures for most kitchens, whereas for PAHs, stationary levels were closer to personal exposure levels for all kitchen types. Conclusions: The results of this study increase the knowledge about exposure to air pollutants for kitchen workers of restaurant types that are common in Sweden and the rest of Europe. Personal sampling is essential for an accurate exposure assessment, and the large day-to-day variability in exposure levels points to the importance of repeated sampling. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]