Laboratory technicians/workers

Employees who expect to be provided a safe workplace—these include operators, maintenance workers, laboratory technicians and technical staff. Each of these groups has different needs. 

Chemical plant, construction, agricultural workers Chemical plant workers, laboratory technicians Plumbers, outdoor sculpture artists, copper foundry workers Chemical plant workers, laboratory technicians Horticulturists... 

Chemical plant workers, agricultural workers, laboratory technicians... 

Exposed workers (concentration and time unspecified) experienced a burning sensation in the eyes, lacrimation, blepharitis, rhinitis, stomatitis, and chronic pharyngitis after brief accidental exposure in a laboratory, technicians reported headache and a feeling of tighmess in the chest. 

This book is intended for chemists, toxicologists, laboratory technicians, manufacturers, safety professionals and government personnel involved in environmental and industrial safety and health matters. The ability to identify the actual manufacturers of hazardous materials is important where detailed background information is required when investigating chemical accidents, exposures, product contamination, faulty labeling and other incidents involving chemicals and their effect on workers or the environment. 

Industrial workers who are beginning to work with polymers should also find this book a useful introduction to the subject. Laboratory technicians, technical staff, and managers in many organizations can learn the vocabulary quickly and begin to gain an appreciation for the field of polymers and its many facets. 

Chemical plant workers, agricultural workers, laboratory technicians Printers, dye workers, cleaners, laboratory technicians Plastics plant workers also found as a river pollutant... 

The most common route of exposure to NAC is (voluntary) inhalation through the respiratory tract. Although not approved by the US Food and Drug Administration, it may be given intravenously in emergency situations. According to a National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health survey conducted between 1981 and 1983, over 30 000 workers in the United States are exposed to NAC on a daily basis. Over two-thirds of those people are inhalation therapists and clinical laboratory technicians, with the remaining majority in some type of medical profession. 

Arsenic Carbon tetrachloride Copper Dimethylforamide 2,4-Dichlorophenoxyacetic acid Eluorine Toluene Trichloroethylene Vinyl chloride Chemical plant, construction, agricultural workers Chemical plant workers, laboratory technicians Plumbers, outdoor sculpture artists, copper foundry workers Chemical plant workers, laboratory technicians Horticulturists Chemical plant workers, laboratory technicians Chemical plant, agricultural workers, laboratory technicians Printers, dye workers, cleaners, laboratory technicians Plastics plant workers, also found as a river pollutant... 

Workers skilled in doing the job are the first logical resource for a procedure review team. Operators review operating procedures. Maintenance mechanics review maintenance procedures. Laboratory technicians and chemists review laboratory procedures. This promotes employee participation and ownership in the procedure development process. 

According to the National Occupational Exposure Study (NOES) conducted by NIOSH from 1981 to 1983, the following estimated number of workers were potentially exposed to Aroclors in the workplace 2,214 to Aroclor 1242 3,702 to Aroclor 1254 991 to Aroclor 1260 and 1,558 to Aroclor 1016 (NIOSH 1989). Occupational exposure to Aroclors occurs in miscellaneous workers in the transformer industry, noncellulose fiber industry, semiconductor and related industries, and in sawmills and planing mills. It also occurs in clinical laboratory technicians and technologists of general medical and surgical hospitals. The NOES database does not contain information on the frequency, concentration, or duration of occupational exposure to any of the chemicals listed. The survey provides estimations of the numbers of workers for whom potential exposure in the worlq)lace is an issue. Since this study was conducted from 1981 to 1983, it does not accurately represent current worlq)lace exposure to PCBs. 

Microbalances used to be very tridqr instruments and only very skilled workers could hope to obtain reproducible results. The basic principle of most types is the torsion of a fiber (steel or quartz), its deflection being read with special optics. Cefola (C5) described a fish-pole balance which has been used in the isolation of plutonium. (A great number of ultramicro techniques now generally known originate from research on radioactive chemicals.) The development of these balances and the use of new principles (electric balances) bring the possibility of accurate weighing to the level of the laboratory technician. 

In 1999, researchers reported a study of fetal outcome following maternal occupational exposure to common organic solvents in occupations, such as factory workers, laboratory technicians, artists, office workers, and so forth. The data showed that occupational exposure to common organic solvents during pregnancy is associated with a 10-fold increased risk of major fetal malformations.27 This is occupational exposure, not some dramatic accidental acute poisoning. By implication, subtle effects on the fetal nervous system, effects that shape emotional and intellectual behavior, are to be expected after maternal exposure to ambient concentrations of organic solvents ordinarily used in many workplaces. 

Not only workers normally in contact with domestic and farm animals but also explorers, surveyors, zoo attendants and laboratory technicians are at risk. Particular examples include T. verrucosum among farmers (or veterinarians) and their families and T. mentagrophytes among laboratory workers. Pet-shop and kennel workers are at risk from M. canis. Sportsmen and various categories of workers (e.g. miners) may contract T. rubrum infection (Wilkinson 1987). 

The next three patients - a foreman in a metal foundry, an industrial worker handling a two-component PU adhesive, and a laboratory technician - had been exposed to MDI or a mixture of MDI and PAPI during periods ranging from 2 weeks to 19 years before they acquired dermatitis. On patch testing, all but the foundry foreman reacted to MDI. All three individuals, however, reacted to MDA, and one also reacted to TDI (Estlander et al. 1992). 

Itchy rash-like eruptions on exposed skin areas in the factory workers who coat car badges with the resin have been reported within 1 week to 6 months of exposure to DMDI (White et al. 1983). The same was reported in workers of a glass-bottle factory, where DMDI was used to coat the bottles (Israeli et al. 1981), as well as in the workers of a PU-molding plant (Emmett 1976). Irritant dermatitis appearing in a laboratory technician within a few hours of contact with TDI and in a repair man have also been described (Rothe 1976). 

Chemical laboratory technicians and associate laboratory workers are exposed to a great number of chemicals that cause irritant or allergic contact dermatitis, contact urticaria or skin burns. Laboratories that deal with biological specimens or laboratory animals, e.g., in hospitals, university clinical departments and pharmaceutical companies, share the hazards of chemistry laboratories however, human and animal tissue specimens, and laboratory animals contribute additional risks of contact urticaria and skin infections. Laboratory assistants are at greater risk of sensitization than workers in general. Also, the risk of skin infections is increased (Karjalainen et al. 1997)-... 

Cases of allergic contact dermatitis or contact urticaria in laboratory technicians or associate workers are frequently reported from histology or electron microscopy laboratories (Van Ketel 1979 Lindskov 1982 Tobler et al. 1990 Palmer and Rycroft 1993 Steinkraus and Hausen 1994 Wakelin et al. 1998) (see Chap. 164), or from film processing (White 1983 Liden 1984) (see details in Photographers). 

In the pharmaceutical industry, people come into contact with both chemical intermediates and finished products. The risk of developing contact allergy is greatest for chemists and laboratory technicians, who are involved in research for new compounds, and for cleaning personnel and technicians in general, who are often less well protected than the workers in production units (Sherertz 1994). Pharmacists are also exposed to medications when preparing compounded formulations, and the conditions they work in are similar to those of medical personnel (Foussereau et al. 1982). 

---