Search

As part of an International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) international epidemiological study of workers in the pulp and paper industry, previously unpublished exposure measurements were assembled in a database. This article summarizes the results of 3,873 measurements carried out in the production departments of paper and paperboard mills and recycling plants in 12 countries. In the paper and paperboard mills, most of the agents were measured in the pulping and refining departments and in on-machine coating and winding of paper/paperboard. Exposures to asbestos, carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, fungal spores, bacteria, nitrogen dioxide, minerals dusts, paper dust, sulphuric acid and different solvents sometimes exceeded exposure limit values. In the re-pulping and de-inking departments of recycling plants high exposures to formaldehyde, fungal spores, bacteria and paper dust were observed. High exposures to asbestos, bioaerosols, carbon monoxide and paper dust were found in many departments; ammonia, formaldehyde, mineral and paper dust and solvents were found in coating machines; and diphenyl and polychlorobiphenyls (PCBs) were found in some special circumstances. Measurements in the newsprint and uncoated paper machine departments revealed only a few elevated exposures. In nearly all departments, measurements of epichlorohydrin, PCBs, sulphur dioxide, hydrogen sulphide and mercaptans tended to be low, often even below their detection limits. In spite of some uncertainties in the measurement data, the study provides new insights into the level and variation of occupational exposures of production workers in the paper and paperboard industry.

Objectives: A previous extensive review of the literature including that from the middle of 1992 concluded that whole-body vibrations may contribute to low back pain, but that the exposure-response relationship had not been clarified. We reviewed the literature of the past 7 years to find out: (i) whether there is evidence in the recent epidemiological literature for a causal association between whole-body vibrations and low back pain, and (ii) if there is evidence in the recent literature for a dose-response relationship between whole-body vibrations and low back pain., Methods: All relevant epidemiological articles which were obtained through a search in the databases MEDLINE, OSH-ROM and TOXLINE, and through personal communication, were reviewed independently by the two authors, using a checklist., Results: Twenty-four original articles concerning the association between whole-body vibrations and the lower back were retained for use. The quality of the papers was mostly low, but improved with time. Only seven articles passed our predetermined quality criteria. Of the seven reports, one showed increased frequency of lumbar prolapse in occupational drivers, and six showed low back pain to be more frequent in whole-body vibration-exposed groups. Only two out of the four articles reporting on dose, showed a dose-response association., Conclusions: Despite the lack of definite evidence, we found sufficient reasons for the reduction of whole-body vibration-exposure to the lowest possible level. If new knowledge is to be produced, good prospective studies with repeated measurements of exposure, analyses of work postures, and clear definitions and subgroupings of low back pain are needed. Other research in this field should be given up, and the resources used for more important issues, as the size of the problem of whole body vibration is probably on the decrease because of the technical prophylactic developments that are already in progress.