首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>Annals of Work Exposures and Health >Industry Derived Occupational Exposure Limits: A Survey of Professionals on the Dutch System of Exposure Guidelines
【2h】

Industry Derived Occupational Exposure Limits: A Survey of Professionals on the Dutch System of Exposure Guidelines

机译:行业衍生的职业接触限值:专业人士对荷兰接触系统的调查

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

The Netherlands’ system for occupational exposure limits (OELs) encompasses two kinds of OELs: public and private. Public OELs are set by the government. Private OELs are derived by industry and cover all substances without a public OEL. In parallel, the regulation concerning the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) has introduced an exposure guidance value similar to the OEL, namely the Derived No-Effect Level (DNEL) for workers’ inhalation exposure. This study aimed to investigate issues encountered by occupational health professionals regarding private OELs, and how they perceive the DNELs for workers in relation to private OELs. Towards this aim, we sent out a web-based questionnaire to the members of the Dutch professional organization for occupational hygienists (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Arbeidshygiëne [NVVA], = 513) and to members of the Dutch professional organization for safety engineers (NVVK, = 2916). Response rates were 27% ( = 139) and 7% ( = 198), respectively. More occupational hygienists (59%) than safety engineers (17%) reported to derive private OELs themselves. Our respondents reported several challenges with the derivation of private OELs. Fifty-one percent of the occupational hygienists and 20% of the safety engineers stated to see a role of REACH Registrants’ worker DNELs as private OELs. However, more than half of our respondents were undecided or unfamiliar with worker DNELs. In addition, stated opinions on where worker DNELs fit in the hierarchy of private OELs varied considerably. To conclude, both these professional groups derive private OELs and stated that they need more guidance for this. Furthermore, there is a lack of clarity whether worker DNELs may qualify as private OELs, and where they would fit in the hierarchy of private OELs.
机译:荷兰的职业接触限值(OEL)系统包含两种OEL:公开和私有。公开OEL由政府设定。私人OEL由行业衍生,涵盖了没有公共OEL的所有物质。同时,有关化学品注册,评估,授权和限制的法规(REACH)引入了类似于OEL的暴露指导值,即工人吸入暴露的衍生无影响水平(DNEL)。这项研究旨在调查职业卫生专业人员遇到的有关私人OEL的问题,以及他们如何看待与私人OEL有关的工人的DNEL。为了实现这一目标,我们向荷兰职业卫生师专业组织(Nederlandse Vereniging voorArbeidshygiëne[NVVA],= 513)和荷兰安全工程师专业组织(NVVK,= 2916)。回应率分别为27%(= 139)和7%(= 198)。据报道,自己生产私人OEL的职业卫生学家(59%)比安全工程师(17%)多。我们的受访者报告了私有OEL的衍生过程中遇到的一些挑战。 51%的职业卫生学家和20%的安全工程师表示,将REACH注册人的工人DNEL视为私人OEL。但是,一半以上的受访者不确定或不熟悉工人DNEL。此外,关于工人DNEL在私人OEL层次结构中适合的位置的陈述也存在很大差异。总之,这两个专业团体都派出了私人OEL,并表示他们需要更多指导。此外,还不清楚工作人员DNEL是否可以被视为私人OEL,以及它们在私人OEL层次结构中的适合位置。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号