The Proposed ACGIH Mass Limits for Quartz: Review and Evaluation

Ayer, Howard E.

doi:10.1080/00028896909343096

Cited by 18 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, often the impinger collection method could only be used to sample for short periods of time rather than the total work shift, and it appeared to have a less effective collection efficiency for fibers compared to dusts. (27,28) Other historic sampling methods for asbestos reported the results in mass of asbestos per volume of air rather than fibers per volume. (29) In 1969, the U.S. Bureau of Occupational Health first published a method describing the use of a new filter counting method for industrial dusts and fibers that allowed for the characterization of the sizes of the individual airborne fibers collected.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Take‐Home Exposure and Risk Associated with the Handling of Clothing Contaminated with Chrysotile Asbestos

Sahmel¹,

Barlow²,

Simmons

et al. 2014

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The potential for para-occupational (or take-home) exposures from contaminated clothing has been recognized for the past 60 years. To better characterize the take-home asbestos exposure pathway, a study was performed to measure the relationship between airborne chrysotile concentrations in the workplace, the contamination of work clothing, and take-home exposures and risks. The study included air sampling during two activities: (1) contamination of work clothing by airborne chrysotile (i.e., loading the clothing), and (2) handling and shaking out of the clothes. The clothes were contaminated at three different target airborne chrysotile concentrations (0-0.1 fibers per cubic centimeter [f/cc], 1-2 f/cc, and 2-4 f/cc; two events each for 31-43 minutes; six events total). Arithmetic mean concentrations for the three target loading levels were 0.01 f/cc, 1.65 f/cc, and 2.84 f/cc (National Institute of Occupational Health and Safety [NIOSH] 7402). Following the loading events, six matched 30-minute clothes-handling and shake-out events were conducted, each including 15 minutes of active handling (15-minute means; 0.014-0.097 f/cc) and 15 additional minutes of no handling (30-minute means; 0.006-0.063 f/cc). Percentages of personal clothes-handling TWAs relative to clothes-loading TWAs were calculated for event pairs to characterize exposure potential during daily versus weekly clothes-handling activity. Airborne concentrations for the clothes handler were 0.2-1.4% (eight-hour TWA or daily ratio) and 0.03-0.27% (40-hour TWA or weekly ratio) of loading TWAs. Cumulative chrysotile doses for clothes handling at airborne concentrations tested were estimated to be consistent with lifetime cumulative chrysotile doses associated with ambient air exposure (range for take-home or ambient doses: 0.00044-0.105 f/cc year).

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of Take‐Home Exposure and Risk Associated with the Handling of Clothing Contaminated with Chrysotile Asbestos

Sahmel¹,

Barlow²,

Simmons

et al. 2014

Risk Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This may be so because quartz is harder than most minerals and does not disintegrate to fine particles easily as reported by Ayer. [35] This may be the reason why cases of silicosis are not reported from metropolitan cities of USA. But in the vicinity of silica-based industry; quartz comes from crushing, cutting, and grinding operations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-occupational exposure to silica dust

2012

Indian J Occup Environ Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Occupational exposure to silica occurs at workplaces in factories like quartz crushing facilities (silica flour milling), agate, ceramic, slate pencil, glass, stone quarries and mines, etc., Non-occupational exposure to silica dust can be from industrial sources in the vicinity of the industry as well as non-industrial sources. Recently, public concern regarding non-occupational or ambient exposure to crystalline silica has emerged making it important to gather information available on non-occupational exposures to silica dust and non-occupational silicosis. This paper reviews various non-occupational exposures reported in literature including some studies by the author. Methodology used in assessment of non-occupational exposures, standards for non-occupational exposures to silica dust and indirect estimation of cumulative risk % are also discussed.

show abstract

“…By 1939, all granite manufacturing sheds had installed local exhaust ventilation for all dust-generating sources and by 1949, all granite quarries had switched from dry to wet drilling [2]. The information acquired by this surveillance of Vermont granite workers played an important role in the development of standards for occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica in the USA [3,4].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Low-Level Respirable Crystalline Silica and Silicosis: Long-Term Follow-Up of Vermont Granite Workers

Vacek,

Glenn,

Parker

2024

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The lifetime risk of silicosis associated with low-level occupational exposure to respirable crystalline silica remains unclear because most previous radiographic studies included workers with varying exposure concentrations and durations. This study assessed the prevalence of silicosis after lengthy exposure to respirable crystalline silica at levels ≤ 0.10 mg/m3. Vermont granite workers employed any time during 1979–1987 were traced and chest radiographs were obtained for 356 who were alive in 2017 and residing in Vermont. Work history, smoking habits and respiratory symptoms were obtained by interview, and exposure was estimated using a previously developed job-exposure matrix. Associations between radiographic findings, exposure, and respiratory symptoms were assessed by ANOVA, chi-square tests and binary regression. Fourteen workers (3.9%) had radiographic evidence of silicosis, and all had been employed ≥30 years. They were more likely to have been stone cutters or carvers and their average exposure concentrations and cumulative exposures to respirable crystalline silica were significantly higher than workers with similar durations of employment and no classifiable parenchymal abnormalities. This provides direct evidence that workers with long-term exposure to low-level respirable crystalline silica (≤0.10 mg/m3) are at risk of developing silicosis.

show abstract

The Proposed ACGIH Mass Limits for Quartz: Review and Evaluation

Cited by 18 publications

References 9 publications

Evaluation of Take‐Home Exposure and Risk Associated with the Handling of Clothing Contaminated with Chrysotile Asbestos

Evaluation of Take‐Home Exposure and Risk Associated with the Handling of Clothing Contaminated with Chrysotile Asbestos

Non-occupational exposure to silica dust

Low-Level Respirable Crystalline Silica and Silicosis: Long-Term Follow-Up of Vermont Granite Workers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About