Abstract  OSHA compliance officers often take industrial hygiene samples when monitoring worker exposures to chemical hazards. Many of these samples are submitted to the Salt Lake Technical Center (SLTC) for analysis. The sampling results included on this web page represent the records of the SLTC sampling information system from 1984 forward. They include data on personal, area, and bulk samples for various airborne contaminants. All inspection sampling results will be included here once the case is closed. OSHA does not publicly disclose information from the following types of cases: open inspections and citations currently under contest or under appeal to the Occupational Safety and Health Review Commission or the U.S. Courts of Appeals. After litigation has concluded, the sampling data from the related inspection will be added at the next scheduled update. OSHA updates the data on this web page semi-annually in January and July. Personal sampling results represent the exposure to the individual who was actually wearing a sampling device. Area samples are taken in a fixed location and results may represent the potential risk from airborne contaminants or physical agents to workers in that area. Bulk samples were taken to verify if certain constituents are present and if so, in what concentration. Bulk samples are used individually or in conjunction with personal or area samples to help interpret the level of worker risk. Please note that these results represent individual samplers that may be changed several times during the work shift. As a result, these values may not be directly comparable to levels listed in OSHA's Permissible Exposure Limits (PEL).

Abstract  BACKGROUND: Based on the Estimation and Assessment of Substance Exposure (EASE) predictive model implemented into the European Union System for the Evaluation of Substances (EUSES 2.1.), the exposure to three chosen organic solvents: toluene, ethyl acetate and acetone was estimated and compared with the results of measurements in workplaces.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: Prior to validation, the EASE model was pretested using three exposure scenarios. The scenarios differed in the decision tree of pattern of use. Five substances were chosen for the test: 1,4-dioxane tert-methyl-butyl ether, diethylamine, 1,1,1-trichloroethane and bisphenol A. After testing the EASE model, the next step was the validation by estimating the exposure level and comparing it with the results of measurements in the workplace. We used the results of measurements of toluene, ethyl acetate and acetone concentrations in the work environment of a paint and lacquer factory, a shoe factory and a refinery. Three types of exposure scenarios, adaptable to the description of working conditions were chosen to estimate inhalation exposure.

RESULTS: Comparison of calculated exposure to toluene, ethyl acetate and acetone with measurements in workplaces showed that model predictions are comparable with the measurement results. Only for low concentration ranges, the measured concentrations were higher than those predicted.

CONCLUSIONS: EASE is a clear, consistent system, which can be successfully used as an additional component of inhalation exposure estimation. If the measurement data are available, they should be preferred to values estimated from models. In addition to inhalation exposure estimation, the EASE model makes it possible not only to assess exposure-related risk but also to predict workers' dermal exposure.

Abstract  The carcinogenicity and/or mutagenicity as well as structural features and relationships of the glycidylethers (principally phenyl-, butyl-, allyl-, and isopropyl-), dioxane, nitroalkanes (nitro methane, ethane and propane), dimethylformamide and allyl derivatives (chloride, alcohol and amine) were examined. Additionally, considerations of the production, use patterns, estimated populations at risk, TLV's and metabolism of the above agents were discussed.

Abstract  BACKGROUND: This paper presents the results of the quantitative study of the airborne chemical substances detected in the conservator's work environment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS: The quantitative tests were carried out in 6 museum easel paintings conservation studios. The air test samples were taken at various stages of restoration works, such as cleaning, doubling, impregnation, varnishing, retouching, just to name a few. The chemical substances in the sampled air were measured by the GC-FID (gas chromatography with flame ionization detector) test method.

RESULTS: The study results demonstrated that concentrations of airborne substances, e.g., toluene, 1,4-dioxane, turpentine and white spirit in the work environment of paintings conservators exceeded the values allowed by hygiene standards. It was found that exposure levels to the same chemical agents, released during similar activities, varied for different paintings conservation studios. It is likely that this discrepancy resulted from the indoor air exchange system for a given studio (e.g. type of ventilation and its efficiency), the size of the object under maintenance, and also from the methodology and protection used by individual employees.

CONCLUSIONS: The levels of organic solvent vapors, present in the workplace air in the course of painting conservation, were found to be well above the occupational exposure limits, thus posing a threat to the worker's health.