Occupational Health and Safety Paper Example: ACME Air Sampling Survey

The reason of an air evaluation is to investigate and document the exposure of employees to hazards present in a process. This will allow management to make informed decisions to ensure the health and well-being of employees. The task of this industrial hygienist performing this assessment is to measure and calculate employee exposure to chemicals used in the printing process and to confirm compliance with regulatory standards and make recommendations to management in the event that the health of exposed employees is at risk. This can be achieved by the hygienist becoming knowledgeable with plant processes, how the operators do their tasks and how chemicals are used, where the chemicals are used, and how much of the chemical is used in the process.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The observation of worker actions to assess the wearing of sample meter, this must be done to make sure the worker can do his or her task without the hindrance of their task or damaging the unit while performing their task. The industrial hygienist must ID and examine existing exposure controls. The industrial hygienist should at this time start data collection record of the ambient environment.

ACME Air Sampling Survey

This air sampling survey was to test for common chemicals used in the printing industry to ensure employees are not exposed to process chemicals near or above Permissible exposure limits over an 8-hour shift. These OSHA permissible limits are as stated in the survey; 200 part per million parts of air for n-Propyl acetate and two hundred (ppm) for n-Propanol. This air sampling was done to compare employee exposure to previous standard air sampling results. The chemicals used in the printing process that were sample are; N-PROPANOL ALCOHOL: this chemical is widely used in industrial manufacturing, we use Isopropanol as one of the parts of our formulation processes, both of these chemicals are used heavily in our facility and though I refer to our manufactures SDS on the job, I have referenced the CDC chemical information for this Assessment.

The routes of exposure to this chemical are; Inhalation, absorption, ingestion into the body and may cause dizziness, drowsiness, nausea, skin irritation, eye irritation, loss of muscle control (ataxia) and exposure at high levels may result in unconsciousness, this chemical attacks the Central Nervous System (1-propanol, 2015). n-propanol acetate which can be inhaled and by ingestion, the vapor is irritates to the eyes, respiratory tract and the skin, and the overexposure can cause lower consciousness (n-propyl acetate, 2015).

Sampling type and reason

As stated in the report, the individual sampling of 5 employees was for the two main printing chemicals, n-Propyl acetate and n-Propanol. The survey states that Area sampling was done for Ozone, but the results were irrelevant due to process not operating at the time of sampling. The Ozone area testing should have been done at or before the time of the personal sampling to determine if the amount of Ozone may have had an effect on the chemicals being tested in the other processes. Sampling should have also been rescheduled till ozone generating process was operating to determine ozone concentrations.

Field blanks should have been performed to get a baseline sample before the survey was started. In method 1401 issue two of the NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (NMAM) it is indicated that 2 to 10 field blanks per set should be performed.

The routes of exposure to these chemicals in the printing process are; n-Propanol acetate is used to thin inks and clean equipment, and n-Propanol alcohol is used in the formulation of inks. The use of these two chemicals in printing application processes can lead to inhalation by the heating of inks, cleaning of equipment and absorption risks in the handling of materials without the right engineering controls and proper Personal Protective Equipment (P.P.E.).

Sampling equipment and methods

The sampling was carried out as stated in the report by using a personal sample pump with sampling media attached near the employees breathing area. The report does not mention that field blanks were done before the survey was started. Field blanks are uncontaminated sample readers brought to the sampling site, handled in all aspects as pulling air samples, except they are not attached to a running pump so that no sample air is drawn through them. The NMAM also states that 2 to 10 field blanks per set should be performed.

The sampling is stated in the report to be done with a sampling pump and appropriate filter media. The filter media is not identified to the reader, and may be an issue since by the NMAM, filter media should be coconut fiber charcoal but this is not mentioned in this report which may bring into question the type of media used. This report does not give any indication of calibration data of the sampling pumps. Also in the report the use of a sampling pump was stated but the flow rate was not expressed to the reader. The NMAM then states that, Sample at an accurately known flow rate between 0.01 and 0.2 L/min for a total sample size of 1 to 10 L (2 to 10 L for n-butanol, sec-butanol, and isobutyl alcohol) (NIOSHDAT, 2017).

Overview of results and explanation of the additive formula

The additive formula is used when two chemicals that can affect the same target organs are used in the same area or process that they will be sampled and added together to determine the applicable exposure limit. OSHA, ACGIH, and NIOSH all recommend a collective approach for two or more substances that affect similar target system (CTEC). The OSHA additive formula is given as; (dividing concentration of first impurity by OSHA PEL for first impurity) + (dividing concentration of the second impurity by OSHA PEL for the second impurity). The percentage PEL outcome in the personal air sampling result is questionable by the formula shown the result should have come out as a percent. Example;

Mike Pre-press: (32/200 of n-propanol) + (10.0/200 of n-propyl acetate) = 0.16+0.05= 0.21

Josh W and H 2 (47/200 of n-propanol) + (14/200 of n-propyl Acetate) = 0.235+0.07= 0.305

Jake W and H 2 (64/200 of n-propanol) + (16/200 of n-propyl Acetate) = 0.32+0.08= 0.40

Percy Vision (23/200 of n-propanol) + (6.5/200 of n-propyl Acetate) = 0.115+0.0325= 0.1475

To achieve the results, the sampler obtained in the calculation for Mike prepress for example would have had to be

(n-propanol: 32/200) + (n-propyl acetate10.0/200) = (0.16 x100 = 16) + (0.05x100=5.0)

16+5.0 = 21.0%

This is not the calculation put forth by OSHA to this end I think that the calculations are unclear and this will add to the questioning of the report.

Off-normal events related the sample compilation

As stated in the report the lamination process at the print shop was not in operation at the time of sampling. This fact brings into question the effect of ozone on the other chemicals used in the printing process. Although the level of ozone is not known in this report, the chemical ozone is considered to be a powerful oxidizing agent, which may have an effect on any chemicals that may have volatile reactions to oxidizers, as the chemicals sampled in this report. Another issue with not knowing the ozone levels is that humans have ill effects when exposed to ozone, ozone has been proven to damage the cells of the immune system and employees should be protected from breathing it.

Summary of the recommendations

Although the results were shared with employees, it is best practice to have a post-sampling interview with employees. This interview is informative and necessary to have an employee sign off on the sampling document not only for his or her knowledge but for EHS recordkeeping. The report is also lacking the official lab identification and lab report to be included with the samplers results. As stated above the samplers % PEL outcome is questionable.

The thoroughness of the study

This study was not a thorough study; although the samples were taken the methodology was not supported by documentation and follow-up interviews as stated above.

Also, the workers chosen for monitoring are never explained, why were these workers chosen, and what their expected exposure to the process and or chemicals would be. The information on sampling equipment, media were not included, and the samplers math is also in question. The documents on calibration were not included, the certified lab information and reports were not included, and a copy of the NIOSH method was not included. I would have included the signed exit interview documents sign by all employees involved. This is all information I would have included to justify my results.

Target audience and concerns associate with distributing this information

The report targets the managers, the monitored employees, auditors and insurance companies, possibly lawyers, and investigators if there was a health issue, or a fatality. This report may also be susceptible to OSHA record retention and employee access requirements. With the lack of certified information from the testing laboratory, lack of proper test methods and lack of supporting documentation, I would not feel comfortable sharing this with other EHS professionals or any regulatory professionals. I do have concerns sharing this with my employees due to the facts stated above and I question the validity of this report, but if I had no faith in the report, I would not share it with my employees.

Conclusion

This air report has many of excluded information and questionable methods. This report has the possibility to become a hindrance to the employer if audited by OSHA. This report can create a hazard to employees by overexposure hazards due to the methodology used to get these results.

References

1-PROPANOL. ( 2015, JULY 22). Retrieved JANUARY 28, 2017, from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0553.html

Combined Toxic Effects of Chemicals (CTEC). (n.d.). Retrieved January 28, 2017, from occupational health and safety hub: http://ohshub.com/combined-toxic-effects-of-chemicals/

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health Division of Applied Research & Technology (NIOSHDART). (2017, January 4). Retrieved January 28, 2017, from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/2003-154/

n-PROPYL ACETATE. (2015, JULY 22). Retrieved JANUARY 28, 2017, from National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health: https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ipcsneng/neng0940.htm

Combined Toxic Effects of Chemicals. (n.d.). Retrieved January 28, 2017, from occupational health and safety hub: http://ohshub.com/combined-toxic-effects-of-chemicals/