Search

Exposure models are essential for a range of contexts involving exposure science. The Exposure Models Working Group, established under ISES Europe, identified that to improve model use, suitable training and education is required. However, there is currently no formal educational training programme for exposure modelling in Europe. We present results from an online survey disseminated to the European exposure science community to identify modelling training needs. The questionnaire had three sections: background information about the respondents and interests in exposure science, previous attendance of exposure modelling courses, interest in future training and education in exposure modelling and their coverage and format.A total of 88 survey recipients completed the survey. Most respondents were from governmental organizations (36 %), with 50 % of all respondents having less than 10 years of experience. About two-thirds of the respondents stated that they had previously attended exposure modelling courses. These were mostly focused on specific models, up to one day in duration and took place in-person. Two thirds of respondents expressed interest in attending future exposure modelling training modules, with the most important topics being interpretation of model results and use of models to meet regulatory standards/requirements. Preferred attendance of training courses was virtual or blended. Costs and certificates of attendance seemed less influential when selecting a training course. Our survey suggests that there is a demand for training in exposure modelling and provides insight to inform the development of training modules that are suitable to fulfil the training needs of exposure scientists and practitioners.

Objectives: To study work exposure and respiratory symptoms in New Zealand plywood mill workers. Methods: Personal inhalable dust (n = 57), bacterial endotoxin (n = 20), abietic acid (n = 20), terpene (n = 20) and formaldehyde (n = 22) measurements were taken and a respiratory health questionnaire was administered to 112 plywood mill workers. Results: Twenty-six percent of the dust exposures exceeded 1 mg/m3, however, none of the samples exceeded the legal limit of 5 mg/m3 [geometric mean (GM) = 0.7 mg/m3, geometric standard deviation (GSD) = 1.9]. Workers in the composer area (where broken sheets are joined together) were significantly (P < 0.01) more highly exposed. Endotoxin levels were low to moderate (GM = 23.0 EU/m3, GSD = 2.8). Abietic acid levels ranged from 0.3 to 2.4 µg/m3 (GM = 0.7 µg/m3, GSD = 1.8) and were significantly (P < 0.05) higher for workers in the composer area of the process. Geometric mean levels of α-pinene, β-pinene and Δ3-carene were 1.0 (GSD = 2.7), 1.5 (GSD = 2.8) and 0.1 (GSD = 1.4), respectively, and α-pinene and β-pinene levels were significantly (P < 0.001) higher for workers in the ''green end'' of the process, up to and including the veneer dryers. Formaldehyde levels ranged from 0.01 to 0.74 mg/m3 [GM = 0.08 mg/m3 (= 0.06 p.p.m.), GSD = 3.0]. Asthma symptoms were more common in plywood mill workers (20.5%, n = 112) than in the general population [12.8%, n = 415, adjusted OR (95% CI) = 1.5 (0.9-2.8)]. Asthma symptoms were associated with duration of employment and were reported to lessen or disappear during holidays. No clear association with any of the measured exposures was found, with the exception of formaldehyde, where workers with high exposure reported more asthma symptoms (36.4%) than low exposed workers [7.9%, adjusted OR (95% CI) = 4.3 (0.7-27.7)]. Conclusions: Plywood mill workers are exposed to inhalable dust, bacterial endotoxin, abietic acid, terpenes and formaldehyde, and they appear to have an increased risk of developing work-related respiratory symptoms. These symptoms may be due to formaldehyde exposure, although a potential causal role for other exposures cannot be excluded. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]