医院环境中的化学品风险评估:工人观念、专家意见和职业卫生测量的比较

IF 0.8 4区 医学 Q4 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Medycyna pracy Pub Date : 2023-11-14 Epub Date: 2023-07-24 DOI:10.13075/mp.5893.01368
Ayşe Coşkun Beyan, Gamze Tuna, Esra Emerce, Gül İşlekel
{"title":"医院环境中的化学品风险评估:工人观念、专家意见和职业卫生测量的比较","authors":"Ayşe Coşkun Beyan, Gamze Tuna, Esra Emerce, Gül İşlekel","doi":"10.13075/mp.5893.01368","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Harmful chemicals are used in various forms from different sources in hospital settings. The standard gold method in risk control studies still determines exposure by personal or ambient measurements. In the absence of trained personnel, resources, or sufficient time, qualitative methods should be used to assess exposure. This study aims to compare quantitative and qualitative results of chemical risk exposure.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Both qualitative (perceptions without monitoring data of the workers and experts) and quantitative perceptions (perceptions with monitoring data) were recorded. Two experts were asked to evaluate exposure intensity in pathology department workers, secretary workers, and cleaning workers. Occupational hygiene measurements were taken based on the occupational health and safety department risk assessment results, expert job analysis, and pilot study measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While most workers reported feeling highly exposed to chemical risks, the majority of experts reported medium-risk exposures and high-risk exposures. Three occupational hygiene measurements (6.6%) exceeded the permissible time-weighted average, and the other results were within the acceptable range.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was a significant difference between the estimated exposure and the measured exposure in hospital settings. A correlation was not found between workers' perceptions of chemical risk exposure and the chemical risk levels measured in this study. Med Pr Work Health Saf. 2023;74(4):241-50.</p>","PeriodicalId":18749,"journal":{"name":"Medycyna pracy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Chemical risk assessment in hospital settings: A comparison of workers' perceptions, expert opinions, and occupational hygiene measurements.\",\"authors\":\"Ayşe Coşkun Beyan, Gamze Tuna, Esra Emerce, Gül İşlekel\",\"doi\":\"10.13075/mp.5893.01368\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Harmful chemicals are used in various forms from different sources in hospital settings. The standard gold method in risk control studies still determines exposure by personal or ambient measurements. In the absence of trained personnel, resources, or sufficient time, qualitative methods should be used to assess exposure. This study aims to compare quantitative and qualitative results of chemical risk exposure.</p><p><strong>Material and methods: </strong>Both qualitative (perceptions without monitoring data of the workers and experts) and quantitative perceptions (perceptions with monitoring data) were recorded. Two experts were asked to evaluate exposure intensity in pathology department workers, secretary workers, and cleaning workers. Occupational hygiene measurements were taken based on the occupational health and safety department risk assessment results, expert job analysis, and pilot study measurements.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>While most workers reported feeling highly exposed to chemical risks, the majority of experts reported medium-risk exposures and high-risk exposures. Three occupational hygiene measurements (6.6%) exceeded the permissible time-weighted average, and the other results were within the acceptable range.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There was a significant difference between the estimated exposure and the measured exposure in hospital settings. A correlation was not found between workers' perceptions of chemical risk exposure and the chemical risk levels measured in this study. Med Pr Work Health Saf. 2023;74(4):241-50.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":18749,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Medycyna pracy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Medycyna pracy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.01368\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/24 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Medycyna pracy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.13075/mp.5893.01368","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/24 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:在医院环境中,有害化学品以各种形式从不同来源使用。风险控制研究中的标准金方法仍然通过个人或环境测量来确定暴露程度。在缺乏训练有素的人员、资源或充足时间的情况下,应采用定性方法评估暴露情况。本研究旨在比较化学物质风险暴露的定量和定性结果。材料和方法:记录定性(没有监测数据的工人和专家的看法)和定量看法(有监测数据的看法)。请两位专家评估病理科工作人员、秘书工作人员和清洁工作人员的暴露强度。职业卫生测量是根据职业卫生安全部门的风险评估结果、专家工作分析和试点研究测量结果进行的。结果:虽然大多数工人报告感觉高度暴露于化学品风险中,但大多数专家报告的是中等风险暴露和高风险暴露。3项职业卫生指标(3/45:6.6%)超过允许的时间加权平均值,其余均在可接受范围内。结论:在医院环境中,估计暴露量与测量暴露量之间存在显著差异。没有发现工人对化学品风险暴露的认知与本研究中测量的化学品风险水平之间存在相关性。Med Pr. 2023;74(4)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Chemical risk assessment in hospital settings: A comparison of workers' perceptions, expert opinions, and occupational hygiene measurements.

Background: Harmful chemicals are used in various forms from different sources in hospital settings. The standard gold method in risk control studies still determines exposure by personal or ambient measurements. In the absence of trained personnel, resources, or sufficient time, qualitative methods should be used to assess exposure. This study aims to compare quantitative and qualitative results of chemical risk exposure.

Material and methods: Both qualitative (perceptions without monitoring data of the workers and experts) and quantitative perceptions (perceptions with monitoring data) were recorded. Two experts were asked to evaluate exposure intensity in pathology department workers, secretary workers, and cleaning workers. Occupational hygiene measurements were taken based on the occupational health and safety department risk assessment results, expert job analysis, and pilot study measurements.

Results: While most workers reported feeling highly exposed to chemical risks, the majority of experts reported medium-risk exposures and high-risk exposures. Three occupational hygiene measurements (6.6%) exceeded the permissible time-weighted average, and the other results were within the acceptable range.

Conclusions: There was a significant difference between the estimated exposure and the measured exposure in hospital settings. A correlation was not found between workers' perceptions of chemical risk exposure and the chemical risk levels measured in this study. Med Pr Work Health Saf. 2023;74(4):241-50.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Medycyna pracy
Medycyna pracy PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
1.90
自引率
10.00%
发文量
35
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal publishes original papers, review papers and case studies in Polish and English. The subject matter of the articles includes occupational pathology, physical, chemical and biological agents at workplace, toxicology, mutagenesis, health policy, health management, health care, epidemiology, etc. The magazine also includes reports from national and international scientific conferences on occupational medicine. It also contains letters to the editor. Each first-in-year issue of the magazine comprises former-year indices of authors and keywords.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信