Browse > Article

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

Lee, Sangyoon (Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University)
Suh, Chun-Hui (Pusan Paik Hospital, Inje University)
Kim, Se-Yeong (Pusan Paik Hospital, Inje University)
Ye, Byeong Jin (Gospel Hospital, Koshin University)
Sul, Jingon (Good Samsun Hospital)
Son, Jun-Seok (Samsung Changwon Hospital, Sungkyunkwan University)
Yoon, Jongwan (Gil Hospital, Gachon University)
Hong, Sukwoo (Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University)
Ryu, Ji Young (Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University)
Kim, Dae-Hwan (Haeundae Paik Hospital, Inje University)
Publication Information
Journal of Korean Society of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene / v.23, no.2, 2013 , pp. 148-155 More about this Journal
Abstract
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.
Keywords
occupational exposure limits; threshold limit values;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Castleman BI, Ziem GE. Corporate influence on threshold limit values. Am J Ind Med. 1988;13(5):531-559   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
12 Ruden C. Scrutinizing ACGIH risk assessments: The trichloroethylene case. Am J Ind Med. 2003;44(2): 207-213   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
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   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Stouten H, Ott H, Bouwman C, Wardenbach P. Reassessment of occupational exposure limits. Am J Ind Med. 2008;51(6):407-418   DOI   ScienceOn
16 Takahashi K, Higashi T. The development and regulation of occupational exposure limits in japan. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 2006;46(2):120-125   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Topping M. Occupational exposure limits for chemicals. Occup Environ Med. 2001;58(2):138-144   DOI
18 Ziem GE, Castleman BI. Threshold limit values: Historical perspectives and current practice. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 1989;31(11):910-918   DOI