Workplace Measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: Descriptive Analysis and Potential Uses for Exposure Assessment.
Saved in:
| Title: | Workplace Measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: Descriptive Analysis and Potential Uses for Exposure Assessment. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Lavoue, J.1, Friesen, M.C.2, Burstyn, I.3 |
| Source: | Annals of Occupational Hygiene. Jan2013, Vol. 57 Issue 1, p77-97. 21p. |
| Subjects: | Database evaluation, Research evaluation, Risk assessment, Industrial hygiene, Research methodology, Multivariate analysis, United States. Occupational Safety & Health Administration, Occupational hazards, Environmental exposure, Descriptive statistics |
| Abstract: | Background : Inspectors from the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have been collecting industrial hygiene samples since 1972 to verify compliance with Permissible Exposure Limits. Starting in 1979, these measurements were computerized into the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS). In 2010, a dataset of over 1 million personal sample results analysed at OSHA’s central laboratory in Salt Lake City [Chemical Exposure Health Data (CEHD)], only partially overlapping the IMIS database, was placed into public domain via the internet. We undertook this study to inform potential users about the relationship between this newly available OSHA data and IMIS and to offer insight about the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of OSHA measurement data for occupational exposure assessment. Methods : We conducted a literature review of previous uses of IMIS in occupational health research and performed a descriptive analysis of the data recently made available and compared them to the IMIS database for lead, the most frequently sampled agent. Results : The literature review yielded 29 studies reporting use of IMIS data, but none using the CEHD data. Most studies focused on a single contaminant, with silica and lead being most frequently analysed. Sixteen studies addressed potential bias in IMIS, mostly by examining the association between exposure levels and ancillary information. Although no biases of appreciable magnitude were consistently reported across studies and agents, these assessments may have been obscured by selective under-reporting of non-detectable measurements. The CEHD data comprised 1 450 836 records from 1984 to 2009, not counting analytical blanks and erroneous records. Seventy eight agents with >1000 personal samples yielded 1 037 367 records. Unlike IMIS, which contain administrative information (company size, job description), ancillary information in the CEHD data is mostly analytical. When the IMIS and CEHD measurements of lead were merged, 23 033 (39.2%) records were in common to both IMIS and CEHD datasets, 10 681 (18.2%) records were only in IMIS, and 25 012 (42.6%) records were only in the CEHD database. While IMIS-only records represent data analysed in other laboratories, CEHD-only records suggest partial reporting of sampling results by OSHA inspectors into IMIS. For lead, the percentage of non-detects in the CEHD-only data was 71% compared to 42% and 46% in the both-IMIS-CEHD and IMIS-only datasets, respectively, suggesting differential under-reporting of non-detects in IMIS. Conclusions : IMIS and the CEHD datasets represent the biggest source of multi-industry exposure data in the USA and should be considered as a valuable source of information for occupational exposure assessment. The lack of empirical data on biases, adequate interpretation of non-detects in OSHA data, complicated by suspected differential under-reporting, remain the principal challenges to the valid estimation of average exposure conditions. We advocate additional comparisons between IMIS and CEHD data and discuss analytical strategies that may play a key role in meeting these challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER] |
| Copyright of Annals of Occupational Hygiene is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Engineering Source |
| FullText | Links: – Type: pdflink Text: Availability: 0 |
|---|---|
| Header | DbId: egs DbLabel: Engineering Source An: 84951104 AccessLevel: 6 PubType: Academic Journal PubTypeId: academicJournal PreciseRelevancyScore: 0 |
| IllustrationInfo | |
| Items | – Name: Title Label: Title Group: Ti Data: Workplace Measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: Descriptive Analysis and Potential Uses for Exposure Assessment. – Name: Author Label: Authors Group: Au Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Lavoue%2C+J%2E%22">Lavoue, J.</searchLink><relatesTo>1</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Friesen%2C+M%2EC%2E%22">Friesen, M.C.</searchLink><relatesTo>2</relatesTo><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Burstyn%2C+I%2E%22">Burstyn, I.</searchLink><relatesTo>3</relatesTo> – Name: TitleSource Label: Source Group: Src Data: <searchLink fieldCode="JN" term="%22Annals+of+Occupational+Hygiene%22">Annals of Occupational Hygiene</searchLink>. Jan2013, Vol. 57 Issue 1, p77-97. 21p. – Name: Subject Label: Subjects Group: Su Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Database+evaluation%22">Database evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+evaluation%22">Research evaluation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Risk+assessment%22">Risk assessment</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Industrial+hygiene%22">Industrial hygiene</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Research+methodology%22">Research methodology</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Multivariate+analysis%22">Multivariate analysis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22United+States%2E+Occupational+Safety+%26+Health+Administration%22">United States. Occupational Safety & Health Administration</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Occupational+hazards%22">Occupational hazards</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Environmental+exposure%22">Environmental exposure</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Descriptive+statistics%22">Descriptive statistics</searchLink> – Name: Abstract Label: Abstract Group: Ab Data: Background : Inspectors from the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) have been collecting industrial hygiene samples since 1972 to verify compliance with Permissible Exposure Limits. Starting in 1979, these measurements were computerized into the Integrated Management Information System (IMIS). In 2010, a dataset of over 1 million personal sample results analysed at OSHA’s central laboratory in Salt Lake City [Chemical Exposure Health Data (CEHD)], only partially overlapping the IMIS database, was placed into public domain via the internet. We undertook this study to inform potential users about the relationship between this newly available OSHA data and IMIS and to offer insight about the opportunities and challenges associated with the use of OSHA measurement data for occupational exposure assessment. Methods : We conducted a literature review of previous uses of IMIS in occupational health research and performed a descriptive analysis of the data recently made available and compared them to the IMIS database for lead, the most frequently sampled agent. Results : The literature review yielded 29 studies reporting use of IMIS data, but none using the CEHD data. Most studies focused on a single contaminant, with silica and lead being most frequently analysed. Sixteen studies addressed potential bias in IMIS, mostly by examining the association between exposure levels and ancillary information. Although no biases of appreciable magnitude were consistently reported across studies and agents, these assessments may have been obscured by selective under-reporting of non-detectable measurements. The CEHD data comprised 1 450 836 records from 1984 to 2009, not counting analytical blanks and erroneous records. Seventy eight agents with >1000 personal samples yielded 1 037 367 records. Unlike IMIS, which contain administrative information (company size, job description), ancillary information in the CEHD data is mostly analytical. When the IMIS and CEHD measurements of lead were merged, 23 033 (39.2%) records were in common to both IMIS and CEHD datasets, 10 681 (18.2%) records were only in IMIS, and 25 012 (42.6%) records were only in the CEHD database. While IMIS-only records represent data analysed in other laboratories, CEHD-only records suggest partial reporting of sampling results by OSHA inspectors into IMIS. For lead, the percentage of non-detects in the CEHD-only data was 71% compared to 42% and 46% in the both-IMIS-CEHD and IMIS-only datasets, respectively, suggesting differential under-reporting of non-detects in IMIS. Conclusions : IMIS and the CEHD datasets represent the biggest source of multi-industry exposure data in the USA and should be considered as a valuable source of information for occupational exposure assessment. The lack of empirical data on biases, adequate interpretation of non-detects in OSHA data, complicated by suspected differential under-reporting, remain the principal challenges to the valid estimation of average exposure conditions. We advocate additional comparisons between IMIS and CEHD data and discuss analytical strategies that may play a key role in meeting these challenges. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER] – Name: AbstractSuppliedCopyright Label: Group: Ab Data: <i>Copyright of Annals of Occupational Hygiene is the property of Oxford University Press / USA and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract.</i> (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) |
| PLink | https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=egs&AN=84951104 |
| RecordInfo | BibRecord: BibEntity: Identifiers: – Type: doi Value: 10.1093/annhyg/mes055 Languages: – Code: eng Text: English PhysicalDescription: Pagination: PageCount: 21 StartPage: 77 Subjects: – SubjectFull: Database evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Research evaluation Type: general – SubjectFull: Risk assessment Type: general – SubjectFull: Industrial hygiene Type: general – SubjectFull: Research methodology Type: general – SubjectFull: Multivariate analysis Type: general – SubjectFull: United States. Occupational Safety & Health Administration Type: general – SubjectFull: Occupational hazards Type: general – SubjectFull: Environmental exposure Type: general – SubjectFull: Descriptive statistics Type: general Titles: – TitleFull: Workplace Measurements by the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration since 1979: Descriptive Analysis and Potential Uses for Exposure Assessment. Type: main BibRelationships: HasContributorRelationships: – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Lavoue, J. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Friesen, M.C. – PersonEntity: Name: NameFull: Burstyn, I. IsPartOfRelationships: – BibEntity: Dates: – D: 01 M: 01 Text: Jan2013 Type: published Y: 2013 Identifiers: – Type: issn-print Value: 00034878 Numbering: – Type: volume Value: 57 – Type: issue Value: 1 Titles: – TitleFull: Annals of Occupational Hygiene Type: main |
| ResultId | 1 |
