Workplace exposure work practice

Neurological effects. Case reports of humans demonstrated that chlorobenzene caused disturbances of the central nervous system, but there were no reports of changes in the structure of the brain and other parts of the nervous system. Effects were observed in humans who inhaled vapors of chlorobenzene in the workplace for up to 2 years (Rozenbaum et al. 1947). Effects included headaches, dizziness, and Sleepiness. Unconsciousness, lack of response to skin stimuli, and muscle spasms were noted following accidental ingestion. While there is qualitative evidence for central nervous system effects in humans, a quantitative assessment can not be made since exposure levels were not reported. Because work practices have changed significantly since these studies, it is reasonable to assume that exposure levels in this study were higher than current permissible federal exposure levels. Acute studies in animals confirm that chlorobenzene is potentially neurotoxic. These effects appear to be the result of narcotic effects of chlorobenzene on the central nervous system. Acute inhalation exposure produced narcosis preceded by muscle spasms in rabbits at 1,090 ppm (Rozenbaum et al. 1947). 

OSHA requires employers of workers who are occupationally exposed to benzene to institute engineering controls and work practices to reduce and maintain employee exposure at or below permissible exposure limits (PEL). If the employer can document that benzene is used in the workplace less than 30 days per year, the employer can use any combination of engineering controls, work practice controls, or respirators to reduce employee exposure to or below the (PEL) of 1 ppm. However, the employer must use... 

Occupational pesticide exposure holds a peculiar status within the field of occupational health and safety, both from a scientific and regulatory perspective. Methods for personal monitoring of dermal exposure first arose in the context of pesticide applications in agriculture, pioneered by scientists in the USA Public Health Service (Batchelor and Walker, 1954 Durham and Wolfe, 1962). These methods gained worldwide recognition in the early 1960s, and remain a component of exposure assessment practice today. This work pre-dated most personal monitoring methods that were developed for industrial workplaces. 

Occupational toxicologists conduct studies to understand the conditions of chemical exposure and develop work practices that reduce health risks to the worker. They work in all sectors industry, academia, and government. Their efforts are focused on obtaining knowledge of the relationship between workplace exposure to a chemical, and the health effects that are of concern to workers. 

In May 1978, OSHA and NIOSH jointly published Current Intelligence Bulletin (CIB) 26 NIAX Catalyst ESN. In this CIB, OSHA and NIOSH recommended that occupational exposure to NIAX Catalyst ESN, its components, dimethylaminopropionitrile and bis(2-(dimethylamino)ethyl)ether, as well as formulations containing either component, be minimized. Exposures should be limited to as few workers as possible, while minimizing workplace exposure concentrations with effective work practices and engineering controls. Exposed workers should be carefully monitored for potential disorders of the nervous and genitourinary system. Although substitution is a possible control measure, alternatives to NIAX Catalyst ESN or its components should be earefully evaluated with regard to possible adverse health effeets. 

B) Demonstration of lead abatement control methods and devices and work practices to identify and prevent hazardous lead exposures in the workplace. 

In most countries, the primary control employed is a limit on the amount of lead in the air breathed by the worker. This in turn influences the amount of lead to which the worker may be exposed elsewhere in the workplace (on surfaces, etc.) and considerable emphasis is usually placed also on general cleanliness and good working practice to limit exposure from such sources. The ultimate purpose in all cases is, of course, to protect the health of the individual worker and so health monitoring of the workforce is also conducted. This can take the form of... 

Means to reduce or eliminate the exposure of the employee to the risks associated with the hazardous chemicals in the workplace. This should include work practices that will reduce the exposures or the use of personal protective equipment. 

Gershon, R.R.M., Karkashian, C.D., Grosch, J.W., Murphy, L.R., Escamilla-Cejudo, A., Flanagan, P.A., Bemacki, E., Kasting, C. and Martin, L. 2000. Hospital safely climate and its relationship with safe work practices and workplace exposure irKidents. American Journal of Infection Control, 28(3), 211-21. 

In the workplace, it is important to prevent and minimize exposure to known depigmentating agents through environmental engineering and industrial hygiene measures. These include good work practices, local exhaust ventilation, chemical substitution and, as a last resort, personal protective equipment. Prevention is especially important for those with chemical leukoderma. 

Recent regulatory requirements make hazard analysis part of the PPE selection process. Hazard analysis procedures should be used to assess the workplace to determine if hazards are present, or are likely to be present, which may necessitate the use of PPE. As part of this assessment, the employees work environment should be examined for potential hazards that are likely to present a danger to any part of their bodies. If it is not possible to eliminate workers exposure or potential exposure to the hazard through the efforts of engineering controls, work practices, and administrative controls, then the proper PPE must be selected, issued, and worn. The checklist found in Figure 24.3 may be of assistance in conducting a hazard analysis. 

If the workplace hazard assessment reveals that employees risk injury to their hands and arms, and engineering and work practice controls do not eliminate such hazards, then hand and arm protection must be provided to employees. The injuries that may need to be guarded against in the workplace include burns, bruises, abrasions, cuts, punctures, fractures, amputations, or chemical exposures. 

As with other types of hazards, the employer must implement feasible engineering controls and work practices before resorting to PPE such as earplugs or earmuffs. If engineering and work practice controls do not lower employee exposure to workplace noise to acceptable levels, then employees must be provided with appropriate PPE. 

Safe work practices include general workplace rules and other site-specific rules. For example, even when hazards are enclosed, exposure can occur when maintenance is necessary. 

Workplace rules and safe work practices are considered administrative controls (Table 11-3). We use administrative controls to decide other measures that are aimed at minimizing exposure to hazards. Such measures can include longer rest breaks, additional substitute employees, exercise breaks to vary body motions, or rotation of employees through different jobs to reduce or even out exposure to hazards. Administrative controls are normally used in conjunction with other controls that more directly prevent or control exposure to hazards [2]. 

Where an assessment has identified an expostue level above the workplace exposure limit (WEL) for the substance, then xmder a hierarchy of preferred controls, LEV equipment must be installed wherever practicable, as opposed to providing personal protective equipment, as the means for reducing the employee s exposure. Such equipment must be properly used by the operator and visually inspected for obvious defects. Fiuther, the employer must ensure that the equipment is maintained and the statutory inspections are carried out. As a part of this inspection it may be necessary to monitor the working environment by air sampling to ensiue that the plant is continuing to operate effectively. 

In each workplace were identified the tasks usually developed. Based on direct observations of work practices on a task-by-task basis, in the time spend by workers in each one, and in the professional judgment (the task that probably involves higher exposure to particles) it was define the ones to evaluate in each workplace (Table 1). 

Where the employer has previously monitored for lead exposure, and the data were obtained within the past 12 months during work operations conducted under workplace conditions closely resembling the processes, type of material, control methods, work practices, and environmental conditions used and prevailing in the employer s current operations, the employer may rely on such earlier monitoring results to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section if the sampling and analytical methods meet the accuracy and confidence levels of paragraph (d)(10) of this section. 

---