Centre for Public Health Research, Massey University, Private Box 756, Wellington, New Zealand.
School of Health Sciences, Purdue University, 550 Stadium Mall Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907, USA.
Ann Work Expo Health. 2017 May 1;61(4):416-428. doi: 10.1093/annweh/wxx020.
To assess wood dust exposures and determinants in joineries and furniture manufacturing and to evaluate the efficacy of specific interventions on dust emissions under laboratory conditions. Also, in a subsequent follow-up study in a small sample of joinery workshops, we aimed to develop, implement, and evaluate a cost-effective and practicable intervention to reduce dust exposures.
Personal inhalable dust (n = 201) was measured in 99 workers from 10 joineries and 3 furniture-making factories. To assess exposure determinants, full-shift video exposure monitoring (VEM) was conducted in 19 workers and task-based VEM in 32 workers (in 7 joineries and 3 furniture factories). We assessed the efficacy of vacuum extraction on hand tools and the use of vacuum cleaners instead of sweeping and dry wiping under laboratory conditions. These measures were subsequently implemented in three joinery workshops with 'high' (>4 mg m-3) and one with 'low' (<2 mg m-3) baseline exposures. We also included two control workshops (one 'low' and one 'high' exposure workshop) in which no interventions were implemented. Exposures were measured 4 months prior and 4 months following the intervention.
Average (geometric means) exposures in joinery and furniture making were 2.5 mg m-3 [geometric standard deviations (GSD) 2.5] and 0.6 mg m-3 (GSD 2.3), respectively. In joinery workers cleaning was associated with a 3.0-fold higher (P < 0.001) dust concentration compared to low exposure tasks (e.g. gluing), while the use of hand tools showed 3.0- to 11.0-fold higher (P < 0.001) exposures. In furniture makers, we found a 5.4-fold higher exposure (P < 0.001) with using a table/circular saw. Laboratory efficiency experiments showed a 10-fold decrease in exposure (P < 0.001) when using a vacuum cleaner. Vacuum extraction on hand tools combined with a downdraft table reduced exposures by 42.5% for routing (P < 0.1) and 85.5% for orbital sanding (P < 0.001). Following intervention measures in joineries, a borderline statistically significant (P < 0.10) reduction in exposure of 30% was found in workshops with 'high' baseline exposures, but no reduction was shown in the workshop with 'low' baseline exposures.
Wood dust exposure is high in joinery workers and (to a lesser extent) furniture makers with frequent use of hand tools and cleaning being key drivers of exposure. Vacuum extraction on hand tools and alternative cleaning methods reduced workplace exposures substantially, but may be insufficient to achieve compliance with current occupational exposure limits.
评估木工和家具制造业中的木尘暴露情况及其决定因素，并评估在实验室条件下针对粉尘排放采取具体干预措施的效果。此外，在后续对小型木工车间的随访研究中，我们旨在制定、实施和评估一种经济有效的实用干预措施，以减少粉尘暴露。
在 10 家木工车间和 3 家家具制造厂的 99 名工人中测量了个人可吸入粉尘（n=201）。为了评估暴露决定因素，对 19 名工人进行了全班视频暴露监测（VEM），对 32 名工人进行了基于任务的 VEM（在 7 家木工车间和 3 家家具厂）。我们评估了真空抽吸对手动工具的效果，以及在实验室条件下使用真空吸尘器代替清扫和干式擦拭的效果。随后，在暴露基线较高（＞4mg/m³）的 3 家木工车间和暴露基线较低（＜2mg/m³）的 1 家木工车间实施了这些措施。我们还纳入了 2 家对照车间（暴露基线较高和较低的车间各 1 家），在这些车间中未实施任何干预措施。在干预措施实施前和实施后 4 个月测量暴露情况。
木工和家具制造的平均（几何平均值）暴露量分别为 2.5mg/m³（几何标准差（GSD）为 2.5）和 0.6mg/m³（GSD 为 2.3）。在木工车间，与低暴露任务（例如胶合）相比，清洁工作的粉尘浓度高 3 倍（P＜0.001），而使用手动工具的暴露浓度高 3 至 11 倍（P＜0.001）。在家具制造商中，我们发现使用台锯/圆锯的暴露量高 5.4 倍（P＜0.001）。实验室效率实验表明，使用真空吸尘器可使暴露量降低 10 倍（P＜0.001）。在手工具上采用真空抽吸并结合下抽式工作台可使铣削（P＜0.1）和轨道砂光（P＜0.001）的暴露量降低 42.5%和 85.5%。在木工车间实施干预措施后，暴露基线较高的车间的暴露量有统计学意义上的显著降低（P＜0.10），但暴露基线较低的车间未显示出降低。
木工车间的粉尘暴露量较高，而家具制造车间（程度较轻）工人频繁使用手动工具，清洁是导致暴露的主要因素。在手工具上采用真空抽吸和替代清洁方法可显著降低工作场所的暴露量，但可能不足以达到当前职业接触限值。
