Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages To Order 5-10 Pages Description/Paper Instructions
UNIT V STUDY GUIDE
Applying the Data From Exposure
Assessments to Existing
Occupational Exposure Limits
Course Learning Outcomes for Unit V
Upon completion of this unit, students should be able to:
- Discuss industrial hygiene related standards.
2.1 Identify the different organizations that publish industrial hygiene occupational exposure limits (OELs).
2.2 Compare and contrast different OELs.
- Evaluate exposure to workplace hazards utilizing published occupational exposure levels
6.1 Determine which occupational exposure limits (OELs) should be used in evaluating sampling data.
6.2 Assess acceptable levels of risk based on sampling data and existing occupational exposure limits (OELs).
Course/Unit Learning Activity Learning Outcomes Unit Lesson Chapter 5, pp. 95–111 Online Document: “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise 2.1 Exposure,” Chapter 1, pp. 1–10 and Introduction, pp. vii–xvi Article: “Exposure Estimation and Interpretation of Occupational Risk: Enhanced Information for the Occupational Risk Manager” Unit V Scholarly Activity Unit Lesson Chapter 5, pp. 95–111 Online Document: “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise 2.2 Exposure,” Chapter 1, pp. 1–10 and Introduction, pp. vii–xvi Article: “Exposure Estimation and Interpretation of Occupational Risk: Enhanced Information for the Occupational Risk Manager” Unit V Scholarly Activity Unit Lesson Chapter 5, pp. 95–111 Online Document: “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise 6.1 Exposure,” Chapter 1, pp. 1–10 and Introduction, pp. vii–xvi Article: “Exposure Estimation and Interpretation of Occupational Risk: Enhanced Information for the Occupational Risk Manager” Unit V Scholarly Activity Unit Lesson Chapter 5, pp. 95–111 Online Document: “Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure,” Chapter 1, pp. 1–10 and Introduction, pp. vii–xvi 6.2 Article: “Exposure Estimation and Interpretation of Occupational Risk: Enhanced Information for the Occupational Risk Manager” Web Page: “Occupational Safety and Health Standards: Toxic and Hazardous Substances (Standard No. 1910.1000)” Unit V Scholarly Activity
MOS 6301, Advanced Industrial Hygiene 1
Reading Assignment UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
Chapter 5: Occupational Exposure Limits and Assessment of Workplace Chemical Risks, pp. 95–111
In order to access the following resources, click the links below.
Read the introduction on pp. vii–xvi and Chapter 1: Recommendations for a Noise Standard on pp. 1–10 of
the Criteria for a Recommended Standard: Occupational Noise Exposure linked below.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (1998). Criteria for a recommended standard: Occupational noise exposure (DHHS [NIOSH] Publication No. 98-126). Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/98-126/pdfs/98-126.pdf?id=10.26616/NIOSHPUB98126
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is the only organization that issues occupational exposure limits (OELs) for airborne exposures that are legally enforceable. The following link takes you to the air contaminants section of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFRs) containing OSHA’s standard for permissible exposure limits (PELs) for compounds that do not have a chemical-specific standard established. Most industrial hygienists use Table Z-1 of this regulation more than any other section.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1970). Occupational safety and health standards: Toxic and hazardous substances (Standard No. 1910.1000). Available at https://www.osha.gov/pls/oshaweb/owadisp.show_document?p_table=Standards&p_id=9991
Waters, M., McKernan, L., Maier, A., Jayjock, M., Schaeffer, V., & Brosseau, L. (2015). Exposure estimation and interpretation of occupational risk: Enhanced information for the occupational risk manager. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 12(Suppl. 1), S99–S111. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=a9h&AN=111071555&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Unit Lesson
You have now calculated the exposure results from the sampling. What do you do next? For most individuals, the answer would be, “Compare the results to the OSHA PEL.” Indeed, that is what most individuals do. A problem that can arise is knowing which limits you compare the results to because there are many competing limits and the differences in the limits can be severe.
Occupational Exposure Limits
Your first inclination is probably to compare the results to the permissible exposure limits (PELs) published by the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). After all, they are the only occupational exposure limits (OELs) that are legally binding. In other words, employers are required by law to reduce exposures for some chemical hazards to a level below the OSHA PEL. If exposures are not reduced to less than a published PEL, OSHA has the authority to issue citations and impose penalties. This provides a great incentive for employers to use the OSHA PELs. In fact, most employers primarily use the OSHA PELs when utilizing sampling results.
OELs are used by industrial hygienists to evaluate the risk of illness or death for worker exposures. In essence, we are performing a risk assessment using the sampling results for the severity variable in the risk assessment matrix. OSHA evaluated multiple scientific studies concerning health risks prior to establishing a PEL. Therefore, one could assume that a PEL represents an acceptable level of risk. In many of the discussions for PELs, OSHA includes a discussion of acceptable risk as it related to the choice of a PEL. Over the years OSHA has used some specific levels of risk as being acceptable.
MOS 6301, Advanced Industrial Hygiene 2
One example would be the level of risk that OSHA considers acceptable for deathUNITinx workersSTUDY exposedGUIDE to a compound. Historically, OSHA has used the risk of 1 death in 1,000 workers exposedTitle to a chemical for eight hours a day for a working lifetime (45 years) as an acceptable risk (“OSHA Occupational,” 2016). This level of risk has been upheld in court decisions. This may lead you to believe that all OSHA PELs reduce the risk of death to less than 1 in 1,000. However, this would be inaccurate because of the requirements placed on OSHA in setting PELs.
Evaluating Risk and OELs
OSHA is required to reduce significant risk when establishing PELs, but only to the extent feasible. In evaluating feasibility, OSHA must evaluate both technological and economic feasibility (“OSHA Occupational,” 2016). This means that OSHA has to look to see if industries affected by the PEL have the technical means to reduce exposures to the new PEL and also how much economic impact the reduction would have on the industries. For these reasons, some PELs do not reduce risk to a level that OSHA would consider acceptable. One example would be the recent reduction of the PEL for respirable crystalline silica. The lifetime risk for death from lung cancer under the old PEL was 20-26 deaths per 1,000 workers. With exposures to the new, reduced PEL the lifetime risk was estimated to 16-23 deaths per 1,000 workers, and for the new action level, the lifetime risk was 10-21 deaths per 1,000 workers (“OSHA Occupational,” 2016). These levels are obviously greater than the risk levels OSHA considers significant. They were not set lower because of feasibility issues. Another significant issue is that many of the OSHA PELs are based on scientific data from the 1960s and 1970s and have not been updated to reflect findings from more recent studies.
The American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) is a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization. The ACGIH is not required to consider feasibility when establishing their OELs. These OELs are health-based guidelines (ACGIH, n.d.). This means that the ACGIH can set or reduce their guidelines based on scientific research without considering the feasibility of employers using the OELs. This has resulted in many threshold limit values (TLVs) being much lower than the corresponding OSHA PEL.
ACGIH Guidelines
The ACGIH publishes several guidelines for which OSHA has limited requirements. One is called biological exposure indices or BEI (ACGIH, n.d.). BEIs are guidelines for assessing worker exposures to chemical hazards through biological monitoring. In other words, a biological sample is collected, typically urine or blood, and is analyzed for some biological indicator based on a knowledge of how the chemical is metabolized in the body. The result is then compared to a BEI to evaluate exposures. While the TLVs are based on the amount of a chemical in the air or the potential exposure, the BEI represents the amount of the chemical uptake into the body (ACGIH, n.d.). Biological sampling can be used to account for the differences in individual reactions to exposure. An example would be the collection of a urine sample at the end of a work shift and analysis for mandelic acid and phenylglyoxylic acid to evaluate exposure to ethyl benzene (ACGIH, n.d.). OSHA typically only has requirements for biological monitoring for very few compounds in chemical specific standards and only requires the biological monitoring when exposures exceed a certain level for a specified period of time. Lead in blood monitoring is one example in 29 CFR 1910.1025 (OSHA, 1970).
The ACGIH also publishes several guidelines for physical hazards. One that is used fairly extensively by health and safety professionals is for thermal stress. While the guidelines are designed for both cold stress and heat stress, the guidelines for heat stress are more widely used. If you are familiar with the guidelines, you have heard of the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) readings that are used to determine a recommended work/rest regimen (ACGIH, n.d.).
The ACGIH (n.d.) also has TLVs for noise exposures. In this area, the ACGIH is much more conservative than OSHA. OSHA has established an eight-hour time-weighted average or TWA PEL for the noise of 90 decibels on the A scale (dBA). OSHA also established an action level of 85 dBA for an eight-hour shift or an equivalent exposure of 50%. OSHA’s permissible exposure time changes as the noise exposure changes. OSHA has adopted a 5 dB doubling criteria. This means that for every 5 dB that the noise increases, the allowable exposure time is cut in half. For example, if the TWA exposure increases from 90 dBA to 95 dBA, the exposure is only allowed for four hours. The ACGIH has set a guideline of 85 dBA for its TLV and uses a 3 dB doubling criteria. Thus, if the personal TWA exposure increases from 85 dB to 88 dBA the allowable
MOS 6301, Advanced Industrial Hygiene 3
exposure decreases to four hours. The differences may not seem that great butUNITrememberxSTUDYtheGUIDEdBscale is logarithmic, not linear so a change of 3 dB or 5 dB is greater than you would thinkTitle.
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Recommended Exposure Limits
The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) is a government agency within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). One task NIOSH performs is conducting research and making recommendations to OSHA for OELs. The OELs that NIOSH publishes are called recommended exposure limits (RELs). As the name implies, the RELs are recommended guidelines and not legally enforceable (CDC, n.d.). Since NIOSH is not required to perform feasibility studies, the RELs are also, generally, lower than the OSHA PELs.
American Industrial Hygiene Association Guidelines
One other group that publishes OELs that are sometimes used by industrial hygienists is the American Industrial Hygiene Association (AIHA). The AIHA is a not-for-profit, nongovernmental organization. The AIHA (n.d.) publishes two basic OELs, Emergency Response Planning Guidelines (ERPGs) and Workplace Environmental Exposure Levels guides (WEELs). ERPGs are guidelines developed for emergency responses to catastrophic releases and not for routine exposures in workplaces. WEELs are developed for occupational exposures and are designed to represent a level that is protective for most workers. Many of the WEELs are for chemicals for which there are no OELs established by OSHA, the ACGIH, or NIOSH.
Deciding Which OEL to Use
How do you make up your mind about which OEL to compare your results with? The first step typically involves a review of your company’s policy. Some companies will have a policy that only the legally binding OSHA PELs will be used. Other companies have policies that all OELs will be reviewed, and the most conservative limit will be used. This goes to a discussion of what is legally required and what is industrial hygiene best practices. Best practices would dictate that you use the most conservative OEL available and is the choice of most IHs. Sometimes the most difficult job an industrial hygienist has is convincing management of the benefits of using a TLV instead of a PEL.
Another variable that must be considered when comparing sample results to OELs is the inherent error that we know is present in the sample results. We discussed this error in a prior unit. Because there is an error in the sample results, when you receive sample results that are close to a published OEL, you cannot be sure that the actual exposure exceeds the OEL. Ideally, you would want to take multiple samples and then perform a statistical analysis of all the results. Many industrial hygienists will then look at the 95th percentile result and compare that to the OEL. This gives you more confidence that the actual exposure does or does not exceed the OEL. The AIHA (n.d.) website has a spreadsheet industrial hygienists can use to conduct the statistical analysis. The spreadsheet works well when you have a lot of data.
Unfortunately, most occupational settings do not have hundreds of workers performing the same task. In many cases, you may have only one individual performing a task with potential exposure to a specific chemical hazard. You are then forced to make decisions about exposures based on a limited number of samples. What are your options? One approach is to compare the exposure to 50% of the OEL. For some chemicals, OSHA uses this approach to establish an action level. These action levels are typically set for compounds for which OSHA has promulgated a chemical-specific standard, such as lead (OSHA, 1970). When an industrial hygienist uses 50% of the OEL for other chemical hazards as an action level, the worker is provided with additional protection.
In the end, the industrial hygienist must make some decisions about sample results and OELs based on professional judgment and experience. Sometimes this involves an understanding of the toxicity of the compounds as we discussed in a previous unit. For example, if you have a sample result that is close the OEL and you know that the compound has high toxicity, either acute or chronic, you may decide to use 50% of the most conservative OEL available. If you know the compound has fairly low toxicity, you may decide to be more liberal in your choice of OELs.
MOS 6301, Advanced Industrial Hygiene 4
References UNIT x STUDY GUIDE
Title
American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists. (n.d.). TLV/BEI guidelines. Retrieved from https://www.acgih.org/tlv-bei-guidelines/policies-procedures-presentations/overview
American Industrial Hygiene Association. (n.d.). Books: AIHA hazard recognition and evaluation. Retrieved
from https://online-
ams.aiha.org/amsssa/ecssashop.show_category?p_category_id=HAZARDRECEVAL&p_cust_id=&p
_order_serno=&p_promo_cd=&p_price_cd=&p_session_serno=16018293&p_trans_ty=
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). About NIOSH. Retrieved from https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/about/default.html
Occupational Safety and Health Administration. (1970). Occupational safety and health standards: Toxic and hazardous substances (Standard No. 1910.1025). Retrieved from https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1025
OSHA Occupational Exposure to Respirable Crystalline Silica, 81 Fed. Reg. 16286 (Mar. 25, 2016). Available at https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2016-03-25/pdf/2016-04800.pdf
Suggested Reading
In order to access the following resources, click the links below.
The CSU Online Library contains many articles that relate to the Unit V readings. The following are just a few of the related articles that can be found in the Academic Search Complete database.
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) and the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) have two relatively different occupational exposure limits (OELs) for noise. They are only 5 dBA different, but because the dB scale is lognormal, not linear, a difference of 5 dB represents a doubling of the sound pressure. The following article shows how one group of researchers compared noise sampling results to both the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) and the ACGIH threshold limit values (TLV), especially not the differences in the reported sampling results when the dosimeters are set to the OSHA and ACGIH parameters.
Gilbertson, L. R., & Vosburgh, D. J. H. (2015). Patrol officer daily noise exposure. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 12(10), 686–691. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=a9h&AN=109440687&site=ehost-live&scope=site
The following article demonstrates the anticipation, recognition, and evaluation process from start to finish at an auto collision repair shop. The sampling involved several examples of IH sampling. Review how the results were compared to OSHA PELs and ACGIH TLVs and the discussion of how some results were less than the OSHA PEL but exceeded the ACGIH TLV.
Bejan, A., Brosseau, L. M., & Parker, D. L. (2011). Exposure assessment in auto collision repair shops. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 8(7), 401–408. Retrieved from https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc t=true&db=a9h&AN=75127947&site=ehost-live&scope=site
The following article is another good example of the entire sampling, analytical, and evaluation process. In this case, the researchers were looking at exposures to various aldehydes that were off-gassing from wood pellets. Read through the article to review the process. Note that the article includes photos showing how the sampling was performed, a copy of one of the GC runs showing how the analytical peaks look, and a
MOS 6301, Advanced Industrial Hygiene 5
comparison to the existing OELs. Especially look at Figure 8 which is a good comparisonUNITxSTUDYofhowGUIDEthedifferent
OELs can vary. Title
Rahman, M. A., Rossner, A., & Hopke, P. K. (2017). Occupational exposure of aldehydes resulting from the
storage of wood pellets. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene, 14(6), 417–426.
Retrieved from
https://libraryresources.columbiasouthern.edu/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direc
t=true&db=a9h&AN=123086666&site=ehost-live&scope=site
Learning Activities (Nongraded)
Nongraded Learning Activities are provided to aid students in their course of study. You do not have to submit them. If you have questions, contact your instructor for further guidance and information.
The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) publishes established permissible exposure limits
(PELS) for most chemicals in three tables (Z-1, Z-2, and Z-3) that are appendices to the standard 29 CFR
1910.1000. Access Table Z-1 at
https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/regulations/standardnumber/1910/1910.1000TABLEZ1.
Look for chemicals with which you are familiar. Can you determine anything about the risk of a chemical by reviewing OSHA’s PELs in the table?
MOS 6301, Advanced Industrial Hygiene 6
RUBRIC
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. The can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper. GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
CLICK ON THE LINK HERE: https://www.perfectacademic.com/orders/ordernow
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!