Occupational and Environmental Hygiene: Monitoring and Measurement of Dust - Term Paper Example

Occupational and Environmental Hygiene Table of Contents Introduction 2 DUST 2 Sampling Methodology 5 Results 6 Discussion 8 Conclusion 9 Noise 10 Sampling Methodology 10 Results 10 Discussion 11 Conclusion and Recommendations 12 References 13 List of Table Table 1 Summary of Airborne Monitoring --------------------------------------------------------------6 Table 2: Personal noise dosimeter obtained from Leq and Peak………………………………10 List of Graphs Graph 1 Relationship between Filter type and Filter weight-------------------------------------------7 Graph 2 Relationship between Filter type and sample amount----------------------------------------7 Graph 3 Relationship between Filter type and concentration------------------------------------------8 Graph 4 Result obtained between dBA and dBZ-------------------------------------------------------11 Introduction This report on occupational and environmental hygiene represents the results of monitoring and measurement of dust and noise which were done on the 23 October, 2012 at the Stud Farm on University of Western Sydney Hawkesbury campus. In the process, Dave, Stable and Blank were selected so as to enable monitoring of general dust. Among other places, Dave was selected to monitor occupational noise exposures using a noise dosimeter as suggested by AS1269. Static dust monitoring was located on stable number 10 with one dust monitor and one noise monitor put up. For effectiveness, dust monitoring installed the samplers on the person being monitored. Also, the dust monitor was placed in the breathing zone of the person so that accuracy of data could be achieved. On the other hand, sound monitoring was done on several locations within the farm using hand held monitor. With principle aim of ascertaining the level of exposure for the staff engaged at the farm, dust and noise monitoring was a one shift undertaking that started from 8:30 am and ended at 12:30pm. Dust The report worked with specific particles which were divided into fumes, dusts, smokes and or mists. The differentiation of these particles was based on the size and nature of the dusts but with particular interest that such constituted airborne particulates. Just as recognised by Tillman (2007), the report noted that though terms “particulates” and “dust” are not synonymous, their use have been substituted whenever necessary. According to research findings by (NOHSC, 3008 1995), airborne dust particles can have devastating health risks. Such are dust particles whose sizes ranges between 1 to 100 microns (0.001 to 0.1 mm). Such dust particles become health hazard since they are not visible thus forming unsafe environment by causing damage to lung tissues. Lung tissues are even damaged further if the environment provides dust particles which have been found to be smaller than 0.5 mm (5 microns) in size. Based on sampling techniques detailed in AS 2985 (2005) and AS 3640 (2005), the report has also adopted necessary strategies that can be used for dust control. Such are: 1. Setting up of the dust control plan which included static monitor put up in the stable 2. Monitoring and analysis of the collected airborne dust 3. Taking actions on measures that are oriented towards controlling the dust generation as well as controlling movements of what can enhance level of worker’s exposure to dust especially when and where such is necessary 4. Taking records of particular cases of individual exposure to dust The report had an intention of attaining a dust sampling result which is all round and represents every situation of dust exposure. Such intention is anchored on what NOHSC 3008 (1995) expresses regarding designing of programs dealing with dust monitoring. National Occupational Health and Safety Commission suggests that those programs that have been put in place to deal with dust monitoring as part of dust control strategies should be designed in a manner that it assess and determines the contribution of airborne dust in places of work and where other activities are involved. The suggestion bas been given by the commission due to the fact that dust can sometimes be generated at different stages of operation under performance. The commission also suggests that such workplaces should have the capacity to determine levels of dust exposure so that necessary precautions can be taken to guarantee health of employees and consequently ascertain such place of work needs a dust control strategies. There are also concerns that dust monitoring programs represent reliability and accountability of dust exposure which is based on activities and related works as aforementioned. Dust monitoring mechanisms divides airborne dust samples into two broad categories: 1. Personal dust sampling 2. Static dust sampling With reference to (NOHSC 3008 1995), personal dust sampling is the process that includes compilation of airborne dust an individual is said to have been exposed to while undertaking the activities. This can be identified and measured. On the other hand, static dust sampling can be understood from duration an individual has been under dust exposure during a standard shift lasting for eight hours. The commission states that static dust sampling can be calculated as time-weighted average. Though the report considered both for monitoring airborne dust, personal dust sampling is always preferred over static. Personal Sampling It is always a preferred method of sampling when: 1. Verifying personal airborne dust results for engineering related purposes or a given work site 2. Determining quality of air by succinctly identifying comparisons between prescribed limits when reporting the results Static Sampling This sampling method requires adequate number of samples to be taken so as clear recording of identified and quantified levels of exposure can take place (NOHSC 3008, 1995). Frequent sampling is recommended as it helps in determining whether the exposure of dust the worker is exposed to is within prescribed limits. The determination will in turn be used to prove whether the exposure trends are sufficiently identified. For instance, there will be a need for thorough investigation if it is determined that sampling results exceed exposure standards. The aim of this investigation has therefore prioritised on: 1. Elimination of the source 2. Application of systematic control or as the final solution 3. Provision of appropriately proved respiratory protective equipment Sampling Methodology To monitor cumulative dust, this report has used the aforementioned types of samples. To this regard, AS3640 (2009) suggests a number of sampling devices available for collecting inhalable fraction. Such include; IOM and UKAEA. This report thus worked with IOM inhalable dust sampling devices which were attached to a sampling pump. As also suggested by AS3640-2009, the report considered engaging IOM sampling heads since significant proportions of particles were above 30µm to 50µm with a percentage error of ±5 factored in during the process. The sampling heads were attached unto SKC Airlite sampling pumps with a flow rate of ±2 L/min for a period between 8:30 am and 12:30 pm. For efficient data recording, SKC Airlite was given a calibration using calibrated flow meter as suggested by Safe Work Australia Publications Site. On the other hand, the procedure involved collection of dust sample using pre-weighted filters that the University of Western Sydney laboratory supplied. Working with recommendations by AS3640-2009, the procedure worked with blank filters so as to serve the purpose of determining changes to the sample filters that may arise due atmospheric conditions. Working with Clause 8.1 of AS3640-2009, there was gravimetric determination of levels of dust at the institution’s analytical laboratory. Results Table 1: Summary of Airborne Monitoring FILTER PUMP MODEL/No START TIME START FLOW (L/min) FINISH TIME FINISH FLOW SAMPLING TIME AVG FLOW % CHANGE FLOW 1.1 DAVE 675138 847 2.068 1243 2.009 236MIN 2.058 3% 1.2 STABLE 826008 940 1.976 1110 1.860 90MIN 1.968 5% 1.3 BLANK FILTER WEIGHTINGS (mg) FILTER NO PRE WEIGHT(mg) POST WEIGHT SAMPLE AMT CONC. (mg m3) 1.1 DAVE 8.049 7.589 -0.46 -2.48 1.2 STABLE 8.52 8.901 -0.38 2.004 1.3 BLANK 8.46 7.616 -0.844 The graph 1 below summarises relationship between Filter type and Filter weight The graph 2 below summarises relationship between Filter type and sample amount The graph 3 below summarises relationship between Filter type and concentration Discussion Drawing conclusion from tables above and rationale proposed by NOHSC 3008 (1995), it is worth noting that results from the monitoring effected on 23 October, 2012 show strong indication that all the exposures were below the currents required standard of 10 mg/m3. Such rationale works best especially with graphs 2 and 3 where concentration indicated fall way below 10 mg/m3. Looking at personal and static samples in the figure 4 above, there is also indication that dust monitoring had greatest variability result. For instance, the figure 4 shows that inhalable dust concentration obtained through static sample was 2.0 mg/m3 which can be converted to be 20%. However, the report recognises this figure to be a potential warning signs of possible high concentrations that could eventually exposure the worker to dusts that exceed the standard required. Even though 2.0 mg/m3 has been argued to be within the required standard, there is concern by Perkins (2008) and NOHSC 3008 (1995) that while working with static samples, should not be regarded as a guarantee of actual exposure the worker is to. Working with data obtained from personal sample as shown in figure, it can be realised that the 1.0 mg/m3 as a representation of 10% was also by record lower than the current dust exposure standards. Lastly, the inhalable dust concentration as shown by filter type 1.3 (control) is 3.0 mg/m3. This is also within the acceptable standards. Conclusion It can be concluded that results that have been tabulated above strongly indicate that dust exposure that was monitored is within the acceptable level. It thus warrants that by the time dust monitoring was carried out at Stud Farm, the then levels of personal exposure to general dust could not amount to significant risk. Noise Organisation of Health and safety (AS/NZS 1269.0 2005) has suggested a comprehensive policy related to managing occupational noise that needs to be incorporated with suggested or general policies a given organisation or researchers work with. Such has suggested features that that should be considered in a program of noise management. These are: 1. Identification of dust 2. Assessment of Risk 3. Hazard and Risk Control 4. Evaluation of Program AS/NZS also adds that assessments that the report expects to be gained through the above five general objectives have been presented as follows: 1. Ability to determine the possibility of being exposed to excessive noise as far as every worker is involved and 2. Ability to come up with effective and reliable standard whereby in such, every person exposed to noise can be reported in terms of: a. The application of different appropriate hearing gadgets that protects while other measures other measures control measures are rendered impracticable or takes long period of time before it is brought to implementation b. The effectiveness of any control measures which have been applied Sampling Methodology Sampling method used at Stud Farm complied with suggestions made by AS/NZS 1269.1 (2005). That is, personal noise monitoring done so as to determine whether workers are exposed to excessive noise. This report considered two models for personal sound exposure monitoring; Leq and Peaks. In reference to AS/NZS 1269.1 (2005), exposure to noise were taken to be measured at the position of Mr. Dave’s ears then the measurements done with assumption that Dave and other workers did not use any protective device against noise. In accordance to AS/NZS 1269.1, Leq and Peak were calibrated before fitted for monitoring. Results The table 2 below shows personal noise dosimeter obtained from Leq and Peak Sample Location Time Noise Levels dBA dBZ/dBLin Background Noise 8:30 58.2 72.3 Farm area 9:20 57.7 81.7 Cars area 9:30 63.8 81.6 Deer area 10:20 54.3 66.2 Cars area 10:45 55.4 59.7 Horse stable 11:20 63.3 95.7 Graph 4 below shows graphical representation of result obtained between dBA and dBZ Discussion Comparing results that were obtained from various locations as shown in the figure 1 above, it can be argued that personal noise monitoring with current exposure standards shows that all locations are favourable working with. That is, the noise results show that both Leq and Peak were below the risk thresholds for occupational noise which are 85dBA and 140dBZ respectively. This means that working location Mr. Dave was exposed to have levels of noise within tolerable range. It is important to note that as per requirement of AS/NZS 1269.1(2005), the monitoring considered normalising the exposure to an equivalent of 8 hours so as to compare what the Occupational Noise Management describe as, “comparing the effect of noise exposure during a workday of 8 hours” (p.17). Working with the formula; L Aeq, 8h=LAeq, T+10logT/8, the exposure were normalised from the graph, none of the location had risk of experiencing any form of hearing loss from immediate area. Conclusion and Recommendation From the result obtained, it is evidence that noise result obtained from Leq and Peak were minimal and do not pose any threat to workers around Stud Farm. Therefore Mr. Dave and other workers around Hawksbury Horse Stud Farm will not experience any form of hearing loss. However, it is important to note that the result obtained through Leq and Peak can sometimes be influenced by other external factors. For instance, huge spikes which accelerated Leq and Peak readings were due to Dave taking his jumper off as it began to get warmer during the day. Secondly, the nature of the job people get engaged with may vary daily and thus changing levels of exposure. Moreover, according to AS/NZS 1269.3 (2005), managing noise effectively should involve gauges which are installed on noise making equipment. Finally, going by the above data, Dave was exposed to minimal dust and noise based on the task he was engaged in. Reference Lists AS3640-2005 Workplace atmospheres - Method for sampling and gravimetric determination of inhalable dust, Standards Australia, Sydney AS/NZS 1269, 2005, Occupational noise management Parts 0-3, Standards Australia, Sydney National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, 2001, Guidance Note on the Interpretation of Exposure Standards for Atmospheric Contaminants in the Occupational Environment [NOHSC: 3008(1995)] 3rd Edition (Updated for Amendments), Australian Government Publishing Service Canberra. Safe Work Australia Publications Site, Available on-line at: http://safeworkaustralia.gov.au/AboutSafeWorkAustralia/WhatWeDo/Publications/Pages/Publication.aspx (accessed 3/11/2012) Tillman, C. (2007). Principles of Occupational Health and Hygiene: An Introduction. Melbourne: Allen & Unwin. Read More