Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “Hazardous Substances”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1994

[Public health evaluation of (hazardous) substances in soil--concept of the AGU and Department of "Tolerable (Hazardous) Substance Concentrations in Soil" for metals].

Up to now no uniform procedure and no generally accepted values exist for health evaluation of pollutants in soil. Aim of the working group for environmental hygiene (AGU) of the Bavarian Ministry of Labour and Social Order, Family, Women and Health is to propose health-based procedures and values for assessment, in consideration of existing concepts and regulations. Basis for health evaluation is the existence of appropriate soil investigations. This refers to the sampling scheme (sampling depth, sampling site and manner, number and representativity of samples) as well as sample preparation and analysis. The "still tolerable pollutant concentration in soil" (TSKB) is supposed to mark a threshold which separates a range of tolerable pollutant concentration from a range where soil-related measures are indicated. Basis for determination of a TSKB-value is the estimation of the average uptake of the respective substance via air, drinking water and food. From this the average level of a tolerable dosis without health risk by regular long-term uptake by humans is calculated. From the remaining portion of tolerable uptake the TSKB-value for the additional pathway of uptake by soil is derived. The estimations are representatively performed for 3-year old children, because small children are especially endangered by uptake of polluted soil. TSKB-values were determined by this procedure for the metals As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, Zn and compared with assessment criteria and values of other working groups.

Adult↗
PubMed1998

Best estimate of the magnitude of mortality due to occupational exposure to hazardous substances.

OBJECTIVES: With a proportionate attributable risk approach, to estimate the magnitude of premature mortality induced by exposure to hazardous substances in the Australian workforce. METHODS: Estimates of the magnitude of mortality induced by exposure to hazardous substances in the Australian work-force were calculated by the proportionate attributable risk approach after careful consideration of options for methodological refinements. The main data sources used were unit mortality datasets (individual deidentified death records), and tabulations when these were unavailable. RESULTS: The estimated number of deaths that occurred in Australia each year from occupational exposure to hazardous substances was 2290; 78% of these were men. The rate of mortality attributable to occupational exposure to hazardous substances was three to four times greater in male workers than in female workers. Male (productive) person-years of life lost (PYLL) were generally eight times higher than female PYLL. Cancer was the prime cause of death, followed by renal, cardiovascular, neurological, and chronic respiratory disease. Acute toxic episodes accounted for a small proportion of mortality but yielded a much larger proportion of PYLL, reflecting the relatively young ages of those who experienced fatal effects. CONCLUSIONS: Although national estimates of the proportions of mortality attributable to occupational exposure to hazardous substances seemed to be validly derived, uncertainties remain associated with the lack of an empirical basis for derivation of proportionate risk fractions used in the calculations. The finding of an appreciable burden of mortality that is attributable to past occupational exposure to hazardous substances emphasises the necessity for occupational health and safety authorities to measure and reduce worksite exposures. There is also an incentive to encourage the construction of appropriately designed cohort studies across industries and occupational groupings so that, ultimately, risk estimates may be directly calculated and applied to total workforce data for the definitive estimation of the magnitude of harm induced by occupational exposure to hazardous substances.

Australia↗
PubMed1995

Best practice in workplace hazardous substances management.

Chemical-induced injury and disease remains a significant problem in workers in industry. As a result of this problem, a number of national and international initiatives have recommended the development of conventions, regulations, and codes of practice to attempt to deal with the problems of hazardous substances at work. Within Australia, workplace hazardous substances regulations are in development which will impose legal obligations and responsibilities on the suppliers of hazardous substances and on the employers who use them. At the same time, internationally consistent ISO standards are in use, or are being developed, for quality systems, environmental management, and occupational health and safety. These standards outline a model for the management of quality, environment, or safety, and the processes involved are applicable to the management of hazardous substances. This process includes: obtaining commitment from senior management; instituting consultative mechanisms; developing a hazardous substances policy; identifying components of the hazardous substances management program; resourcing, implementing, and reviewing the program; and integrating the program into the organisation's strategic plan. Only by blending in a specific management program for hazardous substances into the overall planning of an organization will they be managed effectively and efficiently.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1995

ATSDR's information databases to support human health risk assessment of hazardous substances. Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.

The American public, like persons in many other nations, is concerned about the potential adverse impacts of uncontrolled hazardous wastes. The concerns are often predicated on the fear that adverse health effects will occur because of releases of hazardous substances into community environments. To respond to these concerns, government agencies and private sector organizations must rely on credible, accessible, up-to-date information databases. These databases should be relevant to the needs of the people who respond to uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances. Of particular importance are databases that profile the toxicity of hazardous substances and other information useful to physicians and other health care providers. This paper describes how the federal Agency for Toxic Substances and Diseases Registry (ATSDR) has developed several toxicologic and human health information databases under mandates in the Superfund statute for responding to the public's concerns about hazardous substances.

Databases, Factual↗
PubMed1994

Surveillance for emergency events involving hazardous substances--United States, 1990-1992.

PROBLEM/CONDITION: A review of existing reporting systems indicated that not enough information was being collected to determine the public health consequences of emergency events involving hazardous substances. REPORTING PERIOD COVERED: January 1990 through December 1992. DESCRIPTION OF SYSTEM: State health departments in selected states collect and each quarter transmit information about the events, substances released, and the public health consequences of hazardous substance releases (i.e., morbidity, mortality, and evacuations) to the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR). Five state health departments (Colorado, Iowa, Michigan, New Hampshire, and Wisconsin) began data collection on January 1, 1990. On January 1, 1992, the reporting state health departments included those from Colorado, Iowa, New Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington, and Wisconsin. RESULTS AND INTERPRETATION: During 1990-1992, 3,125 events were reported from participating states to ATSDR's Hazardous Substances Emergency Events Surveillance (HSEES) system. Of these events, 2,391 (77%) were fixed-facility events (i.e., occurred at stationary facilities), and 723 (23%) were transportation related. In 88% of events, a single chemical was released. The most frequently released hazardous substances were volatile organic compounds (18% of the total 4,034 substances released), herbicides (15%), acids (14%), and ammonias (11%). In 467 events (15% of all events), 1,446 persons were injured; 11 persons died as a result of these injuries. Respiratory irritation (37%) and eye irritation (23%) were the most frequently reported health effects. A total of 457 (15%) events resulted in evacuations; of these, 400 (88%) were ordered by an official (e.g., a police officer or firefighter).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Emergencies↗
PubMed1994

Hazardous substance releases at the community level: a practical approach to analyzing potential health threats.

1. When a hazardous substance release occurs in a community, public health nurses must consider whether community members have been exposed, and whether that exposure is sufficient to impact public health. 2. An exposure pathway is the process by which an individual is exposed to contaminants that originate from some source of contamination. The exposure pathway method is effective in determining whether community members are exposed to hazardous substances in their community. 3. After determining a completed exposure pathway, a toxicological analysis estimates the dose of hazardous substances community members may have received and whether that dose may increase risks for an adverse health effect. 4. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) provides information to health care professionals that can assist them in conducting exposure and toxicological analyses.

Data Interpretation, Statistical↗
PubMed1992

[Assessment of occupational exposures to industrial hazardous substances. V. A proposed method for evaluating employee's exposure averages (8-h TWAs) using a single day measurement].

Daily exposure averages (8-h TWAs) to hazardous substances may vary considerably day to day, even though a worker is engaged in the same job. Previously we proposed a method to evaluate a long-term exposure condition with interday fluctuation using some exposure measurements. As it is assumed that 8-h TWAs are log-normally distributed, geometric standard deviation (sigma g) representing true interday fluctuation of 8-h TWAs should be estimated. If a single day's 8-h TWA of a worker is measured, sigma g of his own distribution of 8-h TWAs cannot be estimated. Therefore, to evaluate a long-term condition using a single day's 8-h TWA, representative sigma g in all industrial workplaces must be determined beforehand. To investigate sigma g observed in many industrial workplaces, two days' 8-h TWAs of each worker were measured in a week on 260 workers exposed to 19 hazardous substances. Sg2 (geometric standard deviation estimated by two samples) ranged from 1.00 to 8.22 with a median of 1.47 and a 90% upper limit of 2.47. Transforming Sg2 into sigma g, median and 90% upper limit of sigma g were 1.75 and 2.47, respectively. According to a classification scheme in the proposed method, exposure levels (I to III) were calculated using sigma g of 1.75 and 2.47. A long-term exposure condition to hazardous substances can be evaluated by comparing a single day's 8-h TWA with the exposure levels.

Environmental Monitoring↗
PubMed1992

COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health) in the NHS--beyond awareness: the practical assessment of risk.

This paper describes one approach to practical COSHH assessment developed for the (Scottish) Health Service. For completeness, the COSHH Regulations and corresponding Approved Code of Practice are reviewed from the point of view of undertaking a practical assessment of risk in hospitals. An assessment pro-forma developed for a Scottish Health Board is outlined. A hospital COSHH case study is briefly described. The training of health service COSHH assessors is considered. Finally, the need for a management approach to health and safety based on development and implementation of a suitable safety management system is proposed.

Forms and Records Control↗
PubMed1992

COSHH (Control of Substances Hazardous to Health)--the priorities for the NHS.

Managing COSHH is like managing anything else: define the issues; evaluate the priorities; select management options; implement them and monitor the outcome. In COSHH terms this means inventories, assessments, control measures and auditing. But much of the identification and assessment work should be centralised--after all, the hazards and risks arising from Glutaraldehyde usage or painting with eggshell paints is virtually identical not just across a hospital, but across a District and Region. That is why the Hospital Helpline was established, and has been such a success--a core of COSHH assessments made available to all, so that efforts can be focused on what COSHH is about, after all they are the Control not the Assessment Regulations.

Hazardous Substances↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Managing incidents involving hazardous substances.

Major life-threatening incidents involving hazardous substances are fortunately uncommon, but less devastating local events of this type are frequently encountered. Often the exposures involved are unknown and the health effects to be anticipated are uncertain. Physicians involved in the management of such incidents, or in the evaluation of patients who believe they may have sustained a significant exposure, must proceed methodically and with a knowledge of the most likely health outcomes. The first step is to evaluate the problem, documenting evidence and obtaining accurate information on the nature and magnitude of the hazard. The second step is to contain the problem, coordinating efforts with responsible public and private agencies. The third step is to evaluate health effects, focusing on specific outcomes when the exposure is known and on the primary organ systems of concern (dermal, respiratory, hepatic, neurologic, and renal) and carcinogenic and fetotoxic effects when the exposure is not known. Advance preparation can minimize the effect of an incident on an affected community.

Accidents, Occupational↗
PubMed1998

Use of hazardous substances in the care of rural cancer patients. Current practice standards.

A growing number of rural cancer patients are receiving chemotherapy in hometown clinics and hospitals. Local access to cancer care offers many advantages to patients and providers, but is it safe to give intravenous chemotherapy? What precautions should be taken? Most physicians are well aware of the regulations pertaining to the use of universal precautions to prevent the spread of infectious diseases. A similar approach should be used for hazardous substances. As health care leaders and employers, physicians need to known the risk of exposing employees and themselves to potentially hazardous substances like chemotherapeutic agents. This paper offers current information for physicians to consider when providing cancer care in local health care facilities.

Antineoplastic Agents↗
PubMedDate not supplied

Nurse-aid management of casualties of hazardous substances.

This article aims to assist nurse aiders in the recognition of hazardous substances and suggests some general principles for dealing with people who are injured as a result of coming into contact with such substances.

Emergency Nursing↗