Differences of Exposure Assessments Between Using the Approaches of Area and Personal Exposure Sampling
| Autor: | HOU,LI-JUAN, 侯麗娟 |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2008 |
| Druh dokumentu: | 學位論文 ; thesis |
| Popis: | 96 Nowadays the approach to environmental monitoring for hazardous exposure at workplaces adopted by most of business entities is the method of area sampling no matter what ACGIH TLVs or the permissible exposure enacted by our government mainly focuses on limiting the individual exposure to hazardous agents. It is important to find out the association between the values measured by area and personal exposure sampling approaches. In this study, paired exposure measurements obtained from area and personal sampling approaches were collected in business entities to evaluate (1) whether there was a significant association between area and personal exposure measurements; (2) whether the exposure profiles constructed from area and personal exposure measurements were significant different. The exposure measurements used in this study were obtained from 26 business entities. The numbers of paired exposure measurements for organic solvents, heavy metal, specific chemicals and dust were 488, 7, 84 and 41, respectively. Ethanol (107 pairs), isopropanol (60 pairs), petroleum naphtha (46 pairs) and acetone (46 pairs) were the chemicals with more measurement data. Based on the analyses to the data from different business entities, the results showed that significant associations between area and personal exposure measurements occurs in methanol, n-hexane, sulfuric acid, petroleum naphtha and dust. All others did not have any significant association. A generalized linear model was applied to the exposure data of petroleum naphtha to explore whether control measures in place and area exposure measurements were associated with personal exposure measurements. The results showed that 30.6% variability of personal exposure measurements could be explained by control measures in place and area exposure measurements. The whole linear model reached statistical significance. The variable of area exposure measurements was statistically significant but the variable of control measures in place was not in explaining the variability of personal exposure measurements. Although the results of paired-t tests for area and personal exposure averages of most of agents did not have statistically significant, the exposure profiles constructed from the area and personal exposure measurements did have some differences. Because of the limitation of the small sample size of this study, no conclusion could be made on the determinants of association between area and personal exposure measurements. However, it should be concerned that the estimation bias of exposure assessment resulted from the use of area exposure measurements. |
| Databáze: | Networked Digital Library of Theses & Dissertations |
| Externí odkaz: |
|