Search

There are numerous hazards on construction sites. Significant research has focused on using advanced technologies to prevent collisions between moving construction equipment and workers. Relatively few studies have focused on advanced technologies to quantify worker exposure to long-term health hazards, such as noise, fumes, silica dust and other exposure hazards. One possible technology is wireless Bluetooth systems to quantify exposure risk. A series of tests was designed to investigate leveraging consumer Bluetooth enabled devices as a platform to determine the proximity of a construction worker to potential construction hazards. Bluetooth enabled devices were tested in controlled studies to determine the characteristics of the signal detection and signal strength. The controlled studies demonstrated the viability of estimating the distance between a Bluetooth receiver and emitting device. In a field test, the receiver system performed reasonably well and the system was able to determine when workers w...

Dust reduction equipment adapted for single-person operation was evaluated for gas-powered, commercially available cut-off saws during concrete curb cutting. Cutting was performed without dust control and with two individual exposure control methods: wet suppression and local exhaust ventilation (LEV). The wet suppression system comprised a two-nozzle spray system and a 13.3-L hand-pressurized water supply system with an optimum mean flow rate of 0.83 L/min for 16 min of cutting. The LEV system consisted of a spring-loaded guard, an 18.9-L collection bag, and a centrifugal fan with an estimated exhaust rate of 91 ft(3)/min. Task-based, personal filter samples were obtained for four saw operators during cutting durations of 4 to 16 min on five job sites. Seventeen filter samples were collected without dust control, 14 with wet suppression, and 12 with LEV, yielding a geometric mean respirable dust concentration of 16.4 mg/m(3), 3.60 mg/m(3), and 4.40 mg/m(3), respectively. A dust reduction of 78.0% for wet suppression and 73.2% for LEV was observed vs. no dust control. A statistically significant difference (p0.001) was also revealed for wet suppression and LEV when compared with no dust control; however, a significant difference (p = 0.09) was not observed between wet suppression and LEV. Despite these significant dust reductions, workers are still projected to exceed the ACGIH 8-hr time-weighted average threshold limit value for quartz (0.025 mg/m(3)) in less than 1 hr of cutting for both dust control methods. Further research is still needed to improve dust reduction and portability of both control methods, but the current LEV system offers important advantages, including a drier, less slippery work area and year-round functionality in cold weather.