한국산업보건학회지 (Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene)

  • 제23권2호
  • /
  • Pages.148-155
  • /
  • 2013
  • /
  • 2384-132X(pISSN)
  • /
  • 2289-0564(eISSN)
한국산업보건학회 (Korean Industrial Hygiene Association)
권호 표지

우리나라 특수건강진단 대상물질에 대한 6개 기관의 직업적 노출 기준 비교

Comparison of Occupational Exposure Limits in Six Agencies for Hazardous Substances Related Workers' Periodic Health Examination in South Korea

  • 발행 : 2013.06.30
⟨ 이전 논문 다음 논문 ⟩

초록

Objectives: This study was performed in order to compare the average levels and similarity of occupational exposure limits in South Korea, the U.S., the E.U., Germany, Japan and Finland. Methods: In this study, occupational exposure limits (OELs) for one hundred and seventy seven hazardous substances which are managed in the workplace by the Occupational Safety and Health Act in South Korea were matched with those of other countries. The units for the exposure limits of the same substance (identical CAS number) were unified and the exposure limits in each country were compared with threshold limit values (TLVs) of the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) using a geometric mean method. Geometric similarity was calculated to assess the association by each country. Results: The exposure limits according to ACGIH TLVs in South Korea, the E.U., Germany, Japan, and Finland were 148, 37, 76, 90, and 110, respectively. When using TLVs of ACGIH as a standard, the geometric mean ratios of Germany, Finland, the E.U., South Korea, and Japan were 0.79, 0.80, 0.82, 1.19, and 1.27, respectively. Geometric similarity with TLVs of ACGIH was highest in South Korea (0.75) followed by Japan (0.56), the E.U. (0.52), Finland (0.50), and Germany (0.46). Conclusions: Through the comparison of levels of OELs and similarities among South Korea, the U.S., the E.U., Germany, Japan, and Finland, we could better understand the characteristics of occupational exposure limits by country.

키워드

참고문헌

  1. Castleman BI, Ziem GE. Corporate influence on threshold limit values. Am J Ind Med. 1988;13(5):531-559 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.4700130503
  2. Chung EK, A Review on chemical occupational exposure limits in Korea, J Korean Scoc Occup Environ Hyg. 2007;17(2):160-165
  3. Hansson SO. Setting the limit: Occupational health standards and the limits of science. Oxford University Press, USA; 1998. p. 123-124
  4. Holmberg B, Lundberg P. Assessment and management of occupational risks in the nordic (scandinavian) countries. Am J Ind Med. 1989;15(6):615-626 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.4700150602
  5. Holmberg B, Winell M. Occupational health standards: An international comparison. Scand J Work Environ Health. 1977:1-15
  6. Lundberg P. The nordic expert group, an inter-nordic project for assessment of occupational risks. Sci Total Environ. 1991;101(1):17-24 https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-9697(91)90098-Y
  7. Ministry of Employment and Labor. Exposure limits for Chemical Substances and Physical Agents(MoEL Public Notice No. 2012-31); 2012. p. 6-33
  8. Nielsen GD, Ovrebo S. Background, approaches and recent trends for setting health-based occupational exposure limits: A minireview. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2008;51(3):253-269 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2008.04.002
  9. Perkins JL, Rose VE. Occupational health priorities for health standards: The current NIOSH approach. Am J Public Health. 1979 May;69(5):444-448 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.69.5.444
  10. Rappaport S. Threshold limit values, permissible exposure limits, and feasibility: The bases for exposure limits in the united states. Am J Ind Med. 1993;23(5):683-694 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.4700230502
  11. Roach S, Rappaport S. But they are not thresholds: A critical analysis of the documentation of threshold limit values. Am J Ind Med. 1990;17(6):727-753 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.4700170607
  12. Ruden C. Scrutinizing ACGIH risk assessments: The trichloroethylene case. Am J Ind Med. 2003;44(2): 207-213 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.10252
  13. Schenk L, Hansson SO, Rudén C, Gilek M. Are occupational exposure limits becoming more alike within the european union? Journal of Applied Toxicology. 2008;28(7):858-866 https://doi.org/10.1002/jat.1349
  14. Seeley M, Tonner-Navarro L, Beck B, Deskin R, Feron V, Johanson G, et al. Procedures for health risk assessment in europe. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2001;34(2):153-169 https://doi.org/10.1006/rtph.2001.1490
  15. Stouten H, Ott H, Bouwman C, Wardenbach P. Reassessment of occupational exposure limits. Am J Ind Med. 2008;51(6):407-418 https://doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20579
  16. Takahashi K, Higashi T. The development and regulation of occupational exposure limits in japan. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2006;46(2):120-125 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yrtph.2006.01.009
  17. Topping M. Occupational exposure limits for chemicals. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58(2):138-144 https://doi.org/10.1136/oem.58.2.138
  18. Ziem GE, Castleman BI. Threshold limit values: Historical perspectives and current practice. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 1989;31(11):910-918 https://doi.org/10.1097/00043764-198911000-00014