Assessment of Lead Exposures during Abrasive Blasting and Vacuuming in Ventilated Field Containments: A Case Study

K. Guth, M. Bourgeois, Raymond D. Harbison
{"title":"Assessment of Lead Exposures during Abrasive Blasting and Vacuuming in Ventilated Field Containments: A Case Study","authors":"K. Guth, M. Bourgeois, Raymond D. Harbison","doi":"10.4236/odem.2022.102010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Painting contractors have struggled with implementation and assessment of lead exposure controls leading to persistently elevated blood lead levels in this high-risk group of workers. The objective of this study was to assess the intensity of lead exposures based on commonly used air velocities inside field containment structures during abrasive blasting and vacuuming. Exposures were assessed over 14 days from April to July 2021 at a tainter gate and bridge lead paint removal project. Personal air samples, skin wipes, air velocity readings, and blood lead samples were collected. The geometric mean (GM) lead exposure for abrasive blasters and vacuumers was ≥4 × the OSHA Lead Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 μg/m3. There was high variability in the personal lead exposures (Geometric standard deviation (GSD) 4.0 5.0). The GM hand wipe exposures exceeded a Dermal PEL of 500 μg/wipe (abrasive blaster 564 μg/wipe and vacuumer 754 μg/wipe). Residual lead was measured on workers’ hands in 67% of the post hand washing samples. Air velocities measured inside of the field containments ranged from 107 feet per minute to 229 feet per minute. The effect of air velocity on the concentration of lead on workers’ hands after work (F = 0.58, p = 0.35) and airborne lead concentration was not significant (F = 0.36, p = 0.48). Six of the eight workers’ blood lead levels increased after exposure to lead. There was a non-statistically significant relationship between lead remaining on workers’ hands after handwashing and an increase in blood lead level. This is the first study that assessed both ventilation flow rates used in the industrial painting industry and measurements of airborne and dermal (hands) lead exposures. For the projects evaluated, the collected exposure data indicate that air velocities frequently used in the industrial painting industry to ventilate field containment structures did not tend to prevent an increase in worker blood lead and were inefHow to cite this paper: Guth, K., Bourgeois, M. and Harbison, R. (2022) Assessment of Lead Exposures during Abrasive Blasting and Vacuuming in Ventilated Field Containments: A Case Study. Occupational Diseases and Environmental Medicine, 10, 116-131. https://doi.org/10.4236/odem.2022.102010 Received: April 20, 2022 Accepted: May 24, 2022 Published: May 27, 2022 Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/","PeriodicalId":71955,"journal":{"name":"职业病与环境医学(英文)","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"职业病与环境医学(英文)","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.4236/odem.2022.102010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Painting contractors have struggled with implementation and assessment of lead exposure controls leading to persistently elevated blood lead levels in this high-risk group of workers. The objective of this study was to assess the intensity of lead exposures based on commonly used air velocities inside field containment structures during abrasive blasting and vacuuming. Exposures were assessed over 14 days from April to July 2021 at a tainter gate and bridge lead paint removal project. Personal air samples, skin wipes, air velocity readings, and blood lead samples were collected. The geometric mean (GM) lead exposure for abrasive blasters and vacuumers was ≥4 × the OSHA Lead Permissible Exposure Limit (PEL) of 50 μg/m3. There was high variability in the personal lead exposures (Geometric standard deviation (GSD) 4.0 5.0). The GM hand wipe exposures exceeded a Dermal PEL of 500 μg/wipe (abrasive blaster 564 μg/wipe and vacuumer 754 μg/wipe). Residual lead was measured on workers’ hands in 67% of the post hand washing samples. Air velocities measured inside of the field containments ranged from 107 feet per minute to 229 feet per minute. The effect of air velocity on the concentration of lead on workers’ hands after work (F = 0.58, p = 0.35) and airborne lead concentration was not significant (F = 0.36, p = 0.48). Six of the eight workers’ blood lead levels increased after exposure to lead. There was a non-statistically significant relationship between lead remaining on workers’ hands after handwashing and an increase in blood lead level. This is the first study that assessed both ventilation flow rates used in the industrial painting industry and measurements of airborne and dermal (hands) lead exposures. For the projects evaluated, the collected exposure data indicate that air velocities frequently used in the industrial painting industry to ventilate field containment structures did not tend to prevent an increase in worker blood lead and were inefHow to cite this paper: Guth, K., Bourgeois, M. and Harbison, R. (2022) Assessment of Lead Exposures during Abrasive Blasting and Vacuuming in Ventilated Field Containments: A Case Study. Occupational Diseases and Environmental Medicine, 10, 116-131. https://doi.org/10.4236/odem.2022.102010 Received: April 20, 2022 Accepted: May 24, 2022 Published: May 27, 2022 Copyright © 2022 by author(s) and Scientific Research Publishing Inc. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution International License (CC BY 4.0). http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
在通风场地容器中磨料爆破和抽真空期间铅暴露的评估:一个案例研究
油漆承包商一直在努力实施和评估铅暴露控制,导致这一高危工人群体的血铅水平持续升高。本研究的目的是评估在磨料爆破和真空抽吸过程中,基于场区密封结构内部常用空气速度的铅暴露强度。在2021年4月至7月的14天内,对一个污门和桥梁铅涂料去除项目进行了暴露评估。收集个人空气样本、皮肤湿巾、空气流速读数和血铅样本。研磨机和真空吸尘器的几何平均铅暴露量≥OSHA铅允许暴露限值(PEL) 50 μg/m3的4倍。个人铅暴露有很高的可变性(几何标准偏差(GSD) 4.0 5.0)。GM手擦暴露超过500 μg/wipe的真皮PEL(磨料枪564 μg/wipe,真空吸尘器754 μg/wipe)。在67%的洗手后样本中测量了工人手上的残留铅。在现场容器内测量的空气速度从每分钟107英尺到每分钟229英尺不等。空气流速对工人劳动后手上铅浓度(F = 0.58, p = 0.35)和空气中铅浓度的影响不显著(F = 0.36, p = 0.48)。8名工人中有6人在接触铅后血铅水平升高。工人洗手后手上残留的铅与血铅水平升高之间存在无统计学意义的关系。这是第一个评估工业油漆行业使用的通风流量以及空气和皮肤(手部)铅暴露量的研究。对于所评估的项目,收集的暴露数据表明,工业涂装行业中经常使用的通风现场容器结构的空气速度并不倾向于防止工人血铅的增加,并且在如何引用这篇论文:Guth, K., Bourgeois, M.和Harbison, R.(2022)通风现场容器中磨料爆破和抽真空期间铅暴露的评估:案例研究。职业病与环境医学,10,116-131。https://doi.org/10.4236/odem.2022.102010收稿日期:2022年4月20日收稿日期:2022年5月24日出版日期:2022年5月27日版权所有©作者/作者:Scientific Research Publishing Inc。本作品采用知识共享署名国际许可协议(CC BY 4.0)。http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
36
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书