3.9 Article

Development and Evaluation of an Exposure Control Efficacy Library (ECEL)

期刊

ANNALS OF OCCUPATIONAL HYGIENE
卷 52, 期 7, 页码 567-575

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/annhyg/men054

关键词

control effectiveness; control measure; efficacy data; intervention; occupational exposure; risk management measures; RMM library

资金

  1. Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: This paper describes the development and evaluation of an evidence database on the effectiveness of risk management measures (RMMs) to control inhalation exposure. This database is referred to as Exposure Control Efficacy Library (ECEL). Methods: A comprehensive review of scientific journals in the occupational hygiene field was undertaken. Efficacy values for RMMs in conjunction with contextual information on study design, sampling strategy and measurement type (among other parameters) were stored in an MS Access database. In total, 433 efficacy values for six RMM groups (i.e. enclosure, local exhaust ventilation, specialized ventilation, general ventilation, suppression techniques and separation of the worker) were collected from 90 peer-reviewed publications. These RMM categories were subdivided into more specific categories. Results: Estimated average efficacy values ranged from 87% for specialized ventilation to 43% for general ventilation. Substantial variation in efficacy values was observed within RMM categories based on differences in selected covariables within each study (i.e. study design, sampling strategy, measurement type and others). More contrast in efficacy values was observed when evaluating more detailed subcategories. Conclusions: It is envisaged that ECEL will contribute to exposure modelling, but should be supplemented with expert opinion, preferably in a formal expert elicitation procedure. The work presented here should be considered as a first attempt to collate and analyse RMM efficacy values and inclusion of additional (unpublished) exposure data is highly warranted.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.9
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据