Structure activity relationships (SAR) analysis is the utilization of information on the molecular structure of chemicals to predict important characteristics related to persistence, distribution, uptake and absorption, and toxicity. SAR is an alternative method of identifying potential hazardous chemicals, which holds promise of assisting industries and governments in prioritizing substances for further evaluation or for early-stage decision making for new chemicals. Toxicology is an increasingly expensive and resource-intensive undertaking. Increased concerns over the potential for chemicals to cause adverse effects in exposed human populations have prompted regulatory and health agencies to expand the range and sensitivity of tests to detect toxicological hazards. At the same time, the real and perceived burdens of regulation upon industry have provoked concerns for the practicality of toxicity testing methods and data analysis. At present, the determination of chemical carcinogenicity depends upon lifetime testing of at least two species, both sexes, at several doses, with careful histopathological analysis of multiple organs, as well as detection of preneoplastic changes in cells and target organs. In the United States, the cancer bioassay is estimated to cost in excess of $3 million (1995 dollars).

Even with unlimited financial resources, the burden of testing the approximately 70,000 existing chemicals produced in the world today would exceed the available resources of trained toxicologists. Centuries would be required to complete even a first tier evaluation of these chemicals (NRC 1984). In many countries ethical concerns over the use of animals in toxicity testing have increased, bringing additional pressures upon the uses of standard methods of toxicity testing. SAR has been widely used in the pharmaceutical industry to identify molecules with potential for beneficial use in treatment (Hansch and Zhang 1993). In environmental and occupational health policy, SAR is used to predict the dispersion of compounds in the physical-chemical environment and to screen new chemicals for further evaluation of potential toxicity. Under the US Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), the EPA has used since 1979 an SAR approach as a “first screen” of new chemicals in the premanufacture notification (PMN) process; Australia uses a similar approach as part of its new chemicals notification (NICNAS) procedure. In the US SAR analysis is an important basis for determining that there is a reasonable basis to conclude that manufacture, processing, distribution, use or disposal of the substance will present an unreasonable risk of injury to human health or the environment, as required by Section 5(f) of TSCA. On the basis of this finding, EPA can then require actual tests of the substance under Section 6 of TSCA.

Rationale for SAR

The scientific rationale for SAR is based upon the assumption that the molecular structure of a chemical will predict important aspects of its behaviour in physical-chemical and biological systems (Hansch and Leo 1979).

SAR Process

The SAR review process includes identification of the chemical structure, including empirical formulations as well as the pure compound; identification of structurally analogous substances; searching databases and literature for information on structural analogs; and analysis of toxicity and other data on structural analogs. In some rare cases, information on the structure of the compound alone can be sufficient to support some SAR analysis, based upon well-understood mechanisms of toxicity. Several databases on SAR have been compiled, as well as computer-based methods for molecular structure prediction.

With this information, the following endpoints can be estimated with SAR:

• physical-chemical parameters: boiling point, vapour pressure, water solubility, octanol/water partition coefficient
• biological/environmental fate parameters: biodegradation, soil sorption, photodegradation, pharmacokinetics
• toxicity parameters: aquatic organism toxicity, absorption, acute mammalian toxicity (limit test or LD₅₀), dermal, lung and eye irritation, sensitization, subchronic toxicity, mutagenicity.

It should be noted that SAR methods do not exist for such important health endpoints as carcinogenicity, developmental toxicity, reproductive toxicity, neurotoxicity, immunotoxicity or other target organ effects. This is due to three factors: the lack of a large database upon which to test SAR hypotheses, lack of knowledge of structural determinants of toxic action, and the multiplicity of target cells and mechanisms that are involved in these endpoints (see “The United States approach to risk assessment of reproductive toxicants and neurotoxic agents”). Some limited attempts to utilize SAR for predicting pharmacokinetics using information on partition coefficients and solubility (Johanson and Naslund 1988). More extensive quantitative SAR has been done to predict P450-dependent metabolism of a range of compounds and binding of dioxin- and PCB-like molecules to the cytosolic “dioxin” receptor (Hansch and Zhang 1993).

SAR has been shown to have varying predictability for some of the endpoints listed above, as shown in table 1. This table presents data from two comparisons of predicted activity with actual results obtained by empirical measurement or toxicity testing. SAR as conducted by US EPA experts performed more poorly for predicting physical-chemical properties than for predicting biological activity, including biodegradation. For toxicity endpoints, SAR performed best for predicting mutagenicity. Ashby and Tennant (1991) in a more extended study also found good predictability of short-term genotoxicity in their analysis of NTP chemicals. These findings are not surprising, given current understanding of molecular mechanisms of genotoxicity (see “Genetic toxicology”) and the role of electrophilicity in DNA binding. In contrast, SAR tended to underpredict systemic and subchronic toxicity in mammals and to overpredict acute toxicity to aquatic organisms.

Table 1. Comparison of SAR and test data: OECD/NTP analyses

Source: Data from OECD, personal communication C. Auer ,US EPA. Only those endpoints for which comparable SAR predictions and actual test data were available were used in this analysis. NTP data are from Ashby and Tennant 1991.

¹ Of concern was the failure by SAR to predict acute toxicity in 12% of the chemicals tested.

² OECD data, based on Ames test concordance with SAR

³ NTP data, based on genetox assays compared to SAR predictions for several classes of “structurally alerting chemicals”.

⁴ Concordance varies with class; highest concordance was with aromatic amino/nitro compounds; lowest with “miscellaneous” structures.

For other toxic endpoints, as noted above, SAR has less demonstrable utility. Mammalian toxicity predictions are complicated by the lack of SAR for toxicokinetics of complex molecules. Nevertheless, some attempts have been made to propose SAR principles for complex mammalian toxicity endpoints (for instance, see Bernstein (1984) for an SAR analysis of potential male reproductive toxicants). In most cases, the database is too small to permit rigorous testing of structure-based predictions.

At this point it may be concluded that SAR may be useful mainly for prioritizing the investment of toxicity testing resources or for raising early concerns about potential hazard. Only in the case of mutagenicity is it likely that SAR analysis by itself can be utilized with reliability to inform other decisions. For no endpoint is it likely that SAR can provide the type of quantitative information required for risk assessment purposes as discussed elsewhere in this chapter and Encyclopaedia.

Back

In the 3rd edition of the ILO’s Encyclopaedia, published in 1983, ergonomics was summarized in one article that was only about four pages long. Since the publication of the 3rd edition, there has been a major change in emphasis and in understanding of interrelationships in safety and health: the world is no longer easily classifiable into medicine, safety and hazard prevention. In the last decade almost every branch in the production and service industries has expended great effort in improving productivity and quality. This restructuring process has yielded practical experience which clearly shows that productivity and quality are directly related to the design of working conditions. One direct economical measure of productivity—the costs of absenteeism through illness—is affected by working conditions. Therefore it should be possible to increase productivity and quality and to avoid absenteeism by paying more attention to the design of working conditions.

In sum, the simple hypothesis of modern ergonomics can be stated thus: Pain and exhaustion cause health hazards, wasted productivity and reduced quality, which are measures of the costs and benefits of human work.

This simple hypothesis can be contrasted to occupational medicine which generally restricts itself to establishing the aetiology of occupational diseases. Occupational medicine’s goal is to establish conditions under which the probability of developing such diseases is minimized. Using ergonomic principles these conditions can be most easily formulated in the form of demands and load limitations. Occupational medicine can be summed up as establishing “limitations through medico-scientific studies”. Traditional ergonomics regards its role as one of formulating the methods where, using design and work organization, the limitations established through occupational medicine can be put into practice. Traditional ergonomics could then be described as developing “corrections through scientific studies”, where “corrections” are understood to be all work design recommendations that call for attention to be paid to load limits only in order to prevent health hazards. It is a characteristic of such corrective recommendations that practitioners are finally left alone with the problem of applying them—there is no multidisciplinary team effort.

The original aim of inventing ergonomics in 1857 stands in contrast to this kind of “ergonomics by correction”:

... a scientific approach enabling us to reap, for the benefit of ourselves and others, the best fruits of life’s labour for the minimum effort and maximum satisfaction (Jastrzebowski 1857).

The root of the term “ergonomics” stems from the Greek “nomos” meaning rule, and “ergo” meaning work. One could propose that ergonomics should develop “rules” for a more forward-looking, prospective concept of design. In contrast to “corrective ergonomics”, the idea of prospective ergonomics is based on applying ergonomic recommendations which simultaneously take into consideration profitability margins (Laurig 1992).

The basic rules for the development of this approach can be deduced from practical experience and reinforced by the results of occupational hygiene and ergonomics research. In other words, prospective ergonomics means searching for alternatives in work design which prevent fatigue and exhaustion on the part of the working subject in order to promote human productivity (“... for the benefit of ourselves and others”). This comprehensive approach of prospective ergonomics includes workplace and equipment design as well as the design of working conditions determined by an increasing amount of information processing and a changing work organization. Prospective ergonomics is, therefore, an interdisciplinary approach of researchers and practitioners from a wide range of fields united by the same goal, and one part of a general basis for a modern understanding of occupational safety and health (UNESCO 1992).

Based on this understanding, the Ergonomics chapter in the 4th edition of the ILO Encyclopaedia covers the different clusters of knowledge and experiences oriented toward worker characteristics and capabilities, and aimed at an optimum use of the resource “human work” by making work more “ergonomic”, that is, more humane.

The choice of topics and the structure of articles in this chapter follows the structure of typical questions in the field as practised in industry. Beginning with the goals, principles and methods of ergonomics, the articles which follow cover fundamental principles from basic sciences, such as physiology and psychology. Based on this foundation, the next articles introduce major aspects of an ergonomic design of working conditions ranging from work organization to product design. “Designing for everyone” puts special emphasis on an ergonomic approach that is based on the characteristics and capabilities of the worker, a concept often overlooked in practice. The importance and diversity of ergonomics is shown in two examples at the end of the chapter and can also be found in the fact that many other chapters in this edition of the ILO Encyclopaedia are directly related to ergonomics, such as Heat and Cold, Noise, Vibration, Visual Display Units, and virtually all chapters in the sections Accident and Safety Management and Management and Policy.

Back

Design of Production Systems

Many companies invest millions in computer-supported production systems and at the same time do not make full use of their human resources, whose value can be significantly increased through investments in training. In fact, the use of qualified employee potential instead of highly complex automation can not only, in certain circumstances, significantly reduce investment costs, it can also greatly increase flexibility and system capability.

Causes of Inefficient Use of Technology

The improvements which investments in modern technology are intended to make are frequently not even approximately achieved (Strohm, Kuark and Schilling 1993; Ulich 1994). The most important reasons for this are due to problems in the areas of technology, organization and employee qualifications.

Three main causes can be identified for problems with technology:

1. Insufficient technology. Because of the rapidity of technological changes, new technology reaching the market has sometimes undergone inadequate continuous usability tests, and unplanned downtime can result.
2. Unsuitable technology. Technology developed for large companies is often not suitable for smaller companies. When a small firm introduces a production planning and control system developed for a large company, it may deprive itself of the flexibility necessary for its success or even survival.
3. Excessively complex technology. When designers and developers use their entire planning knowledge to realize what is technically feasible without taking into account the experience of those involved in production, the result can be complex automated systems which are no longer easy to master.

Problems with organization are primarily attributable to continuous attempts at implementing the latest technology in unsuitable organizational structures. For instance, it makes little sense to introduce third, fourth and fifth generation computers into second generation organizations. But this is exactly what many companies do (Savage and Appleton 1988). In many companies, a radical restructuring of the organization is a precondition for the successful use of new technology. This particularly includes an examination of the concepts of production planning and control. Ultimately, local self-control by qualified operators can in certain circumstances be significantly more efficient and economical than a technically highly developed production planning and control system.

Problems with the qualifications of employees primarily arise because a large number of companies do not recognize the need for qualification measures in conjunction with the introduction of computer-supported production systems. In addition, training is too frequently regarded as a cost factor to be controlled and minimized, rather than as a strategic investment. In fact, system downtime and the resulting costs can often be effectively reduced by allowing faults to be diagnosed and remedied on the basis of operators’ competence and system-specific knowledge and experience. This is particularly the case in tightly coupled production facilities (Köhler et al. 1989). The same applies to introducing new products or product variants. Many examples of inefficient excessive technology use testify to such relationships.

The consequence of the analysis briefly presented here is that the introduction of computer-supported production systems only promises success if it is integrated into an overall concept which seeks to jointly optimize the use of technology, the structure of the organization and the enhancement of staff qualifications.

From the Task to the Design of Socio-Technical Systems

Work-related psychological concepts of production design are based on the primacy of
the task. On the one hand, the task forms the interface between individual and organization (Volpert 1987). On the other hand, the task links the social subsystem with the technical subsystem. “The task must be the point of articulation between the social and technical system—linking the job in the technical system with its correlated role behaviour, in the social system” (Blumberg 1988).

This means that a socio-technical system, for example, a production island, is primarily defined by the task which it has to perform. The distribution of work between human and machine plays a central role, because it decides whether the person “functions” as the long arm of the machine with a function leftover in an automation “gap” or whether the machine functions as the long arm of the person, with a tool function supporting human capabilities and competence. We refer to these opposing positions as “technology-oriented” and “work-oriented” (Ulich 1994).

The Concept of Complete Task

The principle of complete activity (Hacker 1986) or complete task plays a central role in work-related psychological concepts for defining work tasks and for dividing up tasks between human and machine. Complete tasks are those “over which the individual has considerable personal control” and that “induce strong forces within the individual to complete or to continue them”. Complete tasks contribute to the “development of what has been described ... as ‘task orientation’—that is, a state of affairs in which the individual’s interest is aroused, engaged and directed by the character of the task” (Emery 1959). Figure 1 summarizes characteristics of completeness which must be taken into account for measures geared towards work-oriented design of production systems.

Figure 1. Characteristics of complete tasks

1. The independent setting of objectives, which can be incorporated into higher-order goals, requires turning away from central planning and control in favour of decentralized shop-floor control, which provides the possibility of making self-determined decisions within defined periods of time.
2. Self-determined preparation for action, in the sense of carrying out planning functions, requires the integration of work preparation tasks on the shop-floor.
3. Selecting methods means, for example, allowing a designer to decide whether he or she wishes to use the drawing board instead of an automated system (such as a CAD application) to perform certain subtasks, provided that it is ensured that data required for other parts of the process are entered in the system.
4. Performance functions with process feedback for correcting actions where appropriate require in the case of encapsulated work processes “windows to the process” which help to minimize process distance.
5. Action control with feedback of results means that shop-floor workers take on the function of quality inspection and control.

These indications of the consequences arising from realizing the principle of the complete task make two things clear: (1) in many cases—probably even the majority of cases—complete tasks in the sense described in figure 1 can only be structured as group tasks on account of the resulting complexity and the associated scope; (2) restructuring of work tasks—particularly when it is linked to introducing group work—requires their integration into a comprehensive restructuring concept which covers all levels of the company.

The structural principles which apply to the various levels are summarized in table 1.

Table 1. Work-oriented principles for production structuring

¹ Taking into account the principle of differential work design.

Source: Ulich 1994.

Possibilities for realizing the principles for production structuring outlined in table 1 are illustrated by the proposal for restructuring a production company shown in figure 2. This proposal, which was unanimously approved both by those responsible for production and by the project group formed for the purpose of restructuring, also demonstrates a fundamental turning away from Tayloristic concepts of labour and authority divisions. The examples of many companies show that the restructuring of work and organization structures on the basis of such models is able to meet both work psychological criteria of promoting health and personality development and the demand for long-term economic efficiency (see Ulich 1994).

Figure 2. Proposal for restructuring a production company

The line of argument favoured here—only very briefly outlined for reasons of space—seeks to make three things clear:

1. Concepts like the ones mentioned here represent an alternative to “lean production” in the sense described by Womack, Jones and Roos (1990). While in the latter approach “every free space is removed” and extreme breaking down of work activities in the Tayloristic sense is maintained, in the approach being advanced in these pages, complete tasks in groups with wide-ranging self-regulation play a central role.
2. Classical career paths for skilled workers are modified and in some cases precluded by the necessary realization of the functional integration principle, that is, with the reintegration on the shop-floor of what are known as indirectly productive functions, such as shop-floor work preparation, maintenance, quality control and so forth. This requires a fundamental reorientation in the sense of replacing the traditional career culture with a competence culture.
3. Concepts such as those mentioned here mean a fundamental change to corporate power structures which must find their counterpart in the development of corresponding possibilities for participation.

Workers’ Participation

In the previous sections types of work organization were described that have as one basic characteristic the democratization at lower levels of an organization’s hierarchy through increased autonomy and decision latitude regarding work content as well as working conditions on the shop-floor. In this section, democratization is approached from a different angle by looking at participative decision-making in general. First, a definitional framework for participation is presented, followed by a discussion of research on the effects of participation. Finally, participative systems design is looked at in some detail.

Definitional framework for participation

Organizational development, leadership, systems design, and labour relations are examples of the variety of tasks and contexts where participation is considered relevant. A common denominator which can be regarded as the core of participation is the opportunity for individuals and groups to promote their interests through influencing the choice between alternative actions in a given situation (Wilpert 1989). In order to describe participation in more detail, a number of dimensions are necessary, however. Frequently suggested dimensions are (a) formal-informal, (b) direct-indirect, (c) degree of influence and (d) content of decision (e.g., Dachler and Wilpert 1978; Locke and Schweiger 1979). Formal participation refers to participation within legally or otherwise prescribed rules (e.g., bargaining procedures, guidelines for project management), while informal participation is based on non-prescribed exchanges, for example, between supervisor and subordinate. Direct participation allows for direct influence by the individuals concerned, whereas indirect participation functions through a system of representation. Degree of influence is usually described by means of a scale ranging from “no information to employees about a decision”, through “advance information to employees” and “consultation with employees” to “common decision of all parties involved”. As regards the giving of advance information without any consultation or common decision-making, some authors argue that this is not a low level of participation at all, but merely a form of “pseudo-participation” (Wall and Lischeron 1977). Finally, the content area for participative decision-making can be specified, for example, technological or organizational change, labour relations, or day-to-day operational decisions.

A classification scheme quite different from those derived from the dimensions presented so far was developed by Hornby and Clegg (1992). Based on work by Wall and Lischeron (1977), they distinguish three aspects of participative processes:

1. the types and levels of interactions between the parties involved in a decision
2. the flow of information between the participants
3. the nature and degree of influence the parties exert on each other.

They then used these aspects to complement a framework suggested by Gowler and Legge (1978), which describes participation as a function of two organizational variables, namely, type of structure (mechanistic versus organic) and type of process (stable versus unstable). As this model includes a number of assumptions about participation and its relationship to organization, it cannot be used to classify general types of participation. It is presented here as one attempt to define participation in a broader context (see table 2). (In the last section of this article, Hornby and Clegg’s study (1992) will be discussed, which also aimed at testing the model’s assumptions.)

Table 2. Participation in organizational context

Source: Adapted from Hornby and Clegg 1992.

An important dimension usually not included in classifications for participation is the organizational goal behind choosing a participative strategy (Dachler and Wilpert 1978). Most fundamentally, participation can take place in order to comply with a democratic norm, irrespective of its influence on the effectiveness of the decision-making process and the quality of the decision outcome and implementation. On the other hand, a participative procedure can be chosen to benefit from the knowledge and experience of the individuals involved or to ensure acceptance of a decision. Often it is difficult to identify the objectives behind choosing a participative approach to a decision and often several objectives will be found at the same time, so that this dimension cannot be easily used to classify participation. However, for understanding participative processes it is an important dimension to keep in mind.

Research on the effects of participation

A widely shared assumption holds that satisfaction as well as productivity gains can be achieved by providing the opportunity for direct participation in decision-making. Overall, research has supported this assumption, but the evidence is not unequivocal and many of the studies have been criticized on theoretical and methodological grounds (Cotton et al. 1988; Locke and Schweiger 1979; Wall and Lischeron 1977). Cotton et al. (1988) argued that inconsistent findings are due to differences in the form of participation studied; for instance, informal participation and employee ownership are associated with high productivity and satisfaction whereas short-term participation is ineffective in both respects. Although their conclusions were strongly criticized (Leana, Locke and Schweiger 1990), there is agreement that participation research is generally characterized by a number of deficiencies, ranging from conceptual problems like those mentioned by Cotton et al. (1988) to methodological issues like variations in results based on different operationalizations of the dependent variables (e.g., Wagner and Gooding 1987).

To exemplify the difficulties of participation research, the classic study by Coch and French (1948) is briefly described, followed by the critique of Bartlem and Locke (1981). The focus of the former study was overcoming resistance to change by means of participation. Operators in a textile plant where frequent transfers between work tasks occurred were given the opportunity to participate in the design of their new jobs to varying degrees. One group of operators participated in the decisions (detailed working procedures for new jobs and piece rates) through chosen representatives, that is, several operators of their group. In two smaller groups, all operators participated in those decisions and a fourth group served as control with no participation allowed. Previously it had been found in the plant that most operators resented being transferred and were slower in relearning their new jobs as compared with learning their first job in the plant and that absenteeism and turnover among transferred operators was higher than among operators not recently transferred.

This occurred despite the fact that a transfer bonus was given to compensate for the initial loss in piece-rate earnings after a transfer to a new job. Comparing the three experimental conditions it was found that the group with no participation remained at a low level of production—which had been set as the group standard—for the first month after the transfer, while the groups with full participation recovered to their former productivity within a few days and even exceeded it at the end of the month. The third group that participated through chosen representatives did not recover as fast, but showed their old productivity after a month. (They also had insufficient material to work on for the first week, however.) No turnover occurred in the groups with participation and little aggression towards management was observed. The turnover in the participation group without participation was 17% and the attitude towards management was generally hostile. The group with no participation was broken up after one month and brought together again after another two and one-half months to work on a new job, and this time they were given the opportunity to participate in the design of their job. They then showed the same pattern of recovery and increased productivity as the groups with participation in the first experiment. The results were explained by Coch and French on the basis of a general model of resistance to change derived from work by Lewin (1951, see below).

Bartlem and Locke (1981) argued that these findings could not be interpreted as support for the positive effects of participation because there were important differences between the groups as regards the explanation of the need for changes in the introductory meetings with management, the amount of training received, the way the time studies were carried out to set the piece rate, the amount of work available and group size. They assumed that perceived fairness of pay rates and general trust in management contributed to the better performance of the participation groups, not participation per se.

In addition to the problems associated with research on the effects of participation, very little is known about the processes that lead to these effects (e.g., Wilpert 1989). In a longitudinal study on the effects of participative job design, Baitsch (1985) described in detail processes of competence development in a number of shop-floor employees. His study can be linked to Deci’s (1975) theory of intrinsic motivation based on the need for being competent and self-determining. A theoretical framework focusing on the effects of participation on the resistance to change was suggested by Lewin (1951) who argued that social systems gain a quasi-stationary equilibrium which is disturbed by any attempt at change. For the change to be successfully carried through, forces in favour of the change must be stronger than the resisting forces. Participation helps in reducing the resisting forces as well as in increasing the driving forces because reasons for resistance can be openly discussed and dealt with, and individual concerns and needs can be integrated into the proposed change. Additionally, Lewin assumed that common decisions resulting from participatory change processes provide the link between the motivation for change and the actual changes in behaviour.

Participation in systems design

Given the—albeit not completely consistent—empirical support for the effectiveness of participation, as well as its ethical underpinnings in industrial democracy, there is widespread agreement that for the purposes of systems design a participative strategy should be followed (Greenbaum and Kyng 1991; Majchrzak 1988; Scarbrough and Corbett 1992). Additionally, a number of case studies on participative design processes have demonstrated the specific advantages of participation in systems design, for example, regarding the quality of the resulting design, user satisfaction, and acceptance (i.e., actual use) of the new system (Mumford and Henshall 1979; Spinas 1989; Ulich et al. 1991).

The important question then is not the if, but the how of participation. Scarbrough and Corbett (1992) provided an overview of various types of participation in the various stages of the design process (see table 3). As they point out, user involvement in the actual design of technology is rather rare and often does not extend beyond information distribution. Participation mostly occurs in the latter stages of implementation and optimization of the technical system and during the development of socio-technical design options, that is, options of organizational and job design in combination with options for the use of the technical system.

Table 3. User participation in the technology process

Adapted from Scarbrough and Corbett 1992.

Besides resistance in managers and engineers to the involvement of users in the design of technical systems and potential restrictions embedded in the formal participation structure of a company, an important difficulty concerns the need for methods that allow the discussion and evaluation of systems that do not yet exist (Grote 1994). In software development, usability labs can help to overcome this difficulty as they provide an opportunity for early testing by future users.

In looking at the process of systems design, including participative processes, Hirschheim and Klein (1989) have stressed the effects of implicit and explicit assumptions of system developers and managers about basic topics such as the nature of social organization, the nature of technology and their own role in the development process. Whether system designers see themselves as experts, catalysts or emancipators will greatly influence the design and implementation process. Also, as mentioned before, the broader organizational context in which participative design takes place has to be taken into account. Hornby and Clegg (1992) provided some evidence for the relationship between general organizational characteristics and the form of participation chosen (or, more precisely, the form evolving in the course of system design and implementation). They studied the introduction of an information system which was carried out within a participative project structure and with explicit commitment to user participation. However, users reported that they had had little information about the changes supposed to take place and low levels of influence over system design and related questions like job design and job security. This finding was interpreted in terms of the mechanistic structure and unstable processes of the organization that fostered “arbitrary” participation instead of the desired open participation (see table 2).

In conclusion, there is sufficient evidence demonstrating the benefits of participative change strategies. However, much still needs to be learned about the underlying processes and influencing factors that bring about, moderate or prevent these positive effects.

Back

Work is essential for life, development and personal fulfilment. Unfortunately, indispensable activities such as food production, extraction of raw materials, manufacturing of goods, energy production and services involve processes, operations and materials which can, to a greater or lesser extent, create hazards to the health of workers and those in nearby communities, as well as to the general environment.

However, the generation and release of harmful agents in the work environment can be prevented, through adequate hazard control interventions, which not only protect workers’ health but also limit the damage to the environment often associated with industrialization. If a harmful chemical is eliminated from a work process, it will neither affect the workers nor go beyond, to pollute the environment.

The profession that aims specifically at the prevention and control of hazards arising from work processes is occupational hygiene. The goals of occupational hygiene include the protection and promotion of workers’ health, the protection of the environment and contribution to a safe and sustainable development.

The need for occupational hygiene in the protection of workers’ health cannot be overemphasized. Even when feasible, the diagnosis and the cure of an occupational disease will not prevent further occurrences, if exposure to the aetiological agent does not cease. So long as the unhealthy work environment remains unchanged, its potential to impair health remains. Only the control of health hazards can break the vicious circle illustrated in figure 1.

Figure 1. Interactions between people and the environment

However, preventive action should start much earlier, not only before the manifestation of any health impairment but even before exposure actually occurs. The work environment should be under continuous surveillance so that hazardous agents and factors can be detected and removed, or controlled, before they cause any ill effects; this is the role of occupational hygiene.

Furthermore, occupational hygiene may also contribute to a safe and sustainable development, that is “to ensure that (development) meets the needs of the present without compromising the ability of the future generations to meet their own needs” (World Commission on Environment and Development 1987). Meeting the needs of the present world population without depleting or damaging the global resource base, and without causing adverse health and environmental consequences, requires knowledge and means to influence action (WHO 1992a); when related to work processes this is closely related to occupational hygiene practice.

Occupational health requires a multidisciplinary approach and involves fundamental disciplines, one of which is occupational hygiene, along with others which include occupational medicine and nursing, ergonomics and work psychology. A schematic representation of the scopes of action for occupational physicians and occupational hygienists is presented in figure 2.

Figure 2. Scopes of action for occupational physicians and occupational hygienists.

It is important that decision makers, managers and workers themselves, as well as all occupational health professionals, understand the essential role that occupational hygiene plays in the protection of workers’ health and of the environment, as well as the need for specialized professionals in this field. The close link between occupational and environmental health should also be kept in mind, since the prevention of pollution from industrial sources, through the adequate handling and disposal of hazardous effluents and waste, should be started at the workplace level. (See “Evaluation of the work environment”).

Concepts and Definitions

Occupational hygiene

Occupational hygiene is the science of the anticipation, recognition, evaluation and control of hazards arising in or from the workplace, and which could impair the health and well-being of workers, also taking into account the possible impact on the surrounding communities and the general environment.

Definitions of occupational hygiene may be presented in different ways; however, they all have essentially the same meaning and aim at the same fundamental goal of protecting and promoting the health and well-being of workers, as well as protecting the general environment, through preventive actions in the workplace.

Occupational hygiene is not yet universally recognized as a profession; however, in many countries, framework legislation is emerging that will lead to its establishment.

Occupational hygienist

 An occupational hygienist is a professional able to:

• anticipate the health hazards that may result from work processes, operations and equipment, and accordingly advise on their planning and design
• recognize and understand, in the work environment, the occurrence (real or potential) of chemical, physical and biological agents and other stresses, and their interactions with other factors, which may affect the health and well-being of workers
• understand the possible routes of agent entry into the human body, and the effects that such agents and other factors may have on health
• assess workers’ exposure to potentially harmful agents and factors and to evaluate the results
•  evaluate work processes and methods, from the point of view of the possible generation and release/propagation of potentially harmful agents and other factors, with a view to eliminating exposures, or reducing them to acceptable levels
• design, recommend for adoption, and evaluate the effectiveness of control strategies, alone or in collaboration with other professionals to ensure effective and economical control
• participate in overall risk analysis and management of an agent, process or workplace, and contribute to the establishment of priorities for risk management
• understand the legal framework for occupational hygiene practice in their own country
• educate, train, inform and advise persons at all levels, in all aspects of hazard communication
• work effectively in a multidisciplinary team involving other professionals
• recognize agents and factors that may have environmental impact, and understand the need to integrate occupational hygiene practice with environmental protection.

It should be kept in mind that a profession consists not only of a body of knowledge, but also of a Code of Ethics; national occupational hygiene associations, as well as the International Occupational Hygiene Association (IOHA), have their own Codes of Ethics (WHO 1992b).  

Occupational hygiene technician

An occupational hygiene technician is “a person competent to carry out measurements of the work environment” but not “to make the interpretations, judgements, and recommendations required from an occupational hygienist”. The necessary level of competence may be obtained in a comprehensive or limited field (WHO 1992b).

International Occupational Hygiene Association (IOHA)

IOHA was formally established, during a meeting in Montreal, on June 2, 1987. At present IOHA has the participation of 19 national occupational hygiene associations, with over nineteen thousand members from seventeen countries.

The primary objective of IOHA is to promote and develop occupational hygiene throughout the world, at a high level of professional competence, through means that include the exchange of information among organizations and individuals, the further development of human resources and the promotion of a high standard of ethical practice. IOHA activities include scientific meetings and publication of a newsletter. Members of affiliated associations are automatically members of IOHA; it is also possible to join as an individual member, for those in countries where there is not yet a national association.

Certification

In addition to an accepted definition of occupational hygiene and of the role of the occupational hygienist, there is need for the establishment of certification schemes to ensure acceptable standards of occupational hygiene competence and practice. Certification refers to a formal scheme based on procedures for establishing and maintaining knowledge, skills and competence of professionals (Burdorf 1995).

IOHA has promoted a survey of existing national certification schemes (Burdorf 1995), together with recommendations for the promotion of international cooperation in assuring the quality of professional occupational hygienists, which include the following:

• “the harmonization of standards on the competence and practice of professional occupational hygienists”
• “the establishment of an international body of peers to review the quality of existing certification schemes”.

Other suggestions in this report include items such as: “reciprocity” and “cross-acceptance of national designations, ultimately aiming at an umbrella scheme with one internationally accepted designation”.

The Practice of Occupational Hygiene

The classical steps in occupational hygiene practice are:

• the recognition of the possible health hazards in the work environment
• the evaluation of hazards, which is the process of assessing exposure and reaching conclusions as to the level of risk to human health
• prevention and control of hazards, which is the process of developing and implementing strategies to eliminate, or reduce to acceptable levels, the occurrence of harmful agents and factors in the workplace, while also accounting for environmental protection.

The ideal approach to hazard prevention is “anticipated and integrated preventive action”, which should include:

• occupational health and environmental impact assessments, prior to the design and installation of any new workplace
• selection of the safest, least hazardous and least polluting technology (“cleaner production”)
• environmentally appropriate location
• proper design, with adequate layout and appropriate control technology, including for the safe handling and disposal of the resulting effluents and waste
• elaboration of guidelines and regulations for training on the correct operation of processes, including on safe work practices, maintenance and emergency procedures.

The importance of anticipating and preventing all types of environmental pollution cannot be overemphasized. There is, fortunately, an increasing tendency to consider new technologies from the point of view of the possible negative impacts and their prevention, from the design and installation of the process to the handling of the resulting effluents and waste, in the so-called cradle-to-grave approach. Environmental disasters, which have occurred in both developed and developing countries, could have been avoided by the application of appropriate control strategies and emergency procedures in the workplace.

Economic aspects should be viewed in broader terms than the usual initial cost consideration; more expensive options that offer good health and environmental protection may prove to be more economical in the long run. The protection of workers’ health and of the environment must start much earlier than it usually does. Technical information and advice on occupational and environmental hygiene should always be available to those designing new processes, machinery, equipment and workplaces. Unfortunately such information is often made available much too late, when the only solution is costly and difficult retrofitting, or worse, when consequences have already been disastrous.

Recognition of hazards

Recognition of hazards is a fundamental step in the practice of occupational hygiene, indispensable for the adequate planning of hazard evaluation and control strategies, as well as for the establishment of priorities for action. For the adequate design of control measures, it is also necessary to physically characterize contaminant sources and contaminant propagation paths.

The recognition of hazards leads to the determination of:

• which agents may be present and under which circumstances
• the nature and possible extent of associated adverse effects on health and well-being.

The identification of hazardous agents, their sources and the conditions of exposure requires extensive knowledge and careful study of work processes and operations, raw materials and chemicals used or generated, final products and eventual by-products, as well as of possibilities for the accidental formation of chemicals, decomposition of materials, combustion of fuels or the presence of impurities. The recognition of the nature and potential magnitude of the biological effects that such agents may cause if overexposure occurs, requires knowledge on and access to toxicological information. International sources of information in this respect include International Programme on Chemical Safety (IPCS), International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) and International Register of Potentially Toxic Chemicals, United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP-IRPTC).

Agents which pose health hazards in the work environment include airborne contaminants; non-airborne chemicals; physical agents, such as heat and noise; biological agents; ergonomic factors, such as inadequate lifting procedures and working postures; and psychosocial stresses.

Occupational hygiene evaluations

Occupational hygiene evaluations are carried out to assess workers’ exposure, as well as to provide information for the design, or to test the efficiency, of control measures.

Evaluation of workers’ exposure to occupational hazards, such as airborne contaminants, physical and biological agents, is covered elsewhere in this chapter. Nevertheless, some general considerations are provided here for a better understanding of the field of occupational hygiene.

It is important to keep in mind that hazard evaluation is not an end in itself, but must be considered as part of a much broader procedure that starts with the realization that a certain agent, capable of causing health impairment, may be present in the work environment, and concludes with the control of this agent so that it will be prevented from causing harm. Hazard evaluation paves the way to, but does not replace, hazard prevention.

Exposure assessment

Exposure assessment aims at determining how much of an agent workers have been exposed to, how often and for how long. Guidelines in this respect have been established both at the national and international level—for example, EN 689, prepared by the Comité Européen de Normalisation (European Committee for Standardization) (CEN 1994).

In the evaluation of exposure to airborne contaminants, the most usual procedure is the assessment of inhalation exposure, which requires the determination of the air concentration of the agent to which workers are exposed (or, in the case of airborne particles, the air concentration of the relevant fraction, e.g., the “respirable fraction”) and the duration of the exposure. However, if routes other than inhalation contribute appreciably to the uptake of a chemical, an erroneous judgement may be made by looking only at the inhalation exposure. In such cases, total exposure has to be assessed, and a very useful tool for this is biological monitoring.

The practice of occupational hygiene is concerned with three kinds of situations:

• initial studies to assess workers’ exposure
• follow-up monitoring/surveillance
• exposure assessment for epidemiological studies.

A primary reason for determining whether there is overexposure to a hazardous agent in the work environment, is to decide whether interventions are required. This often, but not necessarily, means establishing whether there is compliance with an adopted standard, which is usually expressed in terms of an occupational exposure limit. The determination of the “worst exposure” situation may be enough to fulfil this purpose. Indeed, if exposures are expected to be either very high or very low in relation to accepted limit values, the accuracy and precision of quantitative evaluations can be lower than when the exposures are expected to be closer to the limit values. In fact, when hazards are obvious, it may be wiser to invest resources initially on controls and to carry out more precise environmental evaluations after controls have been implemented.

Follow-up evaluations are often necessary, particularly if the need existed to install or improve control measures or if changes in the processes or materials utilized were foreseen. In these cases, quantitative evaluations have an important surveillance role in:

• evaluating the adequacy, testing the efficiency or disclosing possible failures in the control systems
• detecting whether alterations in the processes, such as operating temperature, or in the raw materials, have altered the exposure situation.

Whenever an occupational hygiene survey is carried out in connection with an epidemiological study in order to obtain quantitative data on relationships between exposure and health effects, the exposure must be characterized with a high level of accuracy and precision. In this case, all exposure levels must be adequately characterized, since it would not be enough, for example, to characterize only the worst case exposure situation. It would be ideal, although difficult in practice, to always keep precise and accurate exposure assessment records since there may be a future need to have historical exposure data.

In order to ensure that evaluation data is representative of workers’ exposure, and that resources are not wasted, an adequate sampling strategy, accounting for all possible sources of variability, must be designed and followed. Sampling strategies, as well as measurement techniques, are covered in “Evaluation of the work environment”.

Interpretation of results

The degree of uncertainty in the estimation of an exposure parameter, for example, the true average concentration of an airborne contaminant, is determined through statistical treatment of the results from measurements (e.g., sampling and analysis). The level of confidence on the results will depend on the coefficient of variation of the “measuring system” and on the number of measurements. Once there is an acceptable confidence, the next step is to consider the health implications of the exposure: what does it mean for the health of the exposed workers: now? in the near future? in their working life? will there be an impact on future generations?

The evaluation process is only completed when results from measurements are interpreted in view of data (sometimes referred to as “risk assessment data”) derived from experimental toxicology, epidemiological and clinical studies and, in certain cases, clinical trials. It should be clarified that the term risk assessment has been used in connection with two types of assessments—the assessment of the nature and extent of risk resulting from exposure to chemicals or other agents, in general, and the assessment of risk for a particular worker or group of workers, in a specific workplace situation.

In the practice of occupational hygiene, exposure assessment results are often compared with adopted occupational exposure limits which are intended to provide guidance for hazard evaluation and for setting target levels for control. Exposure in excess of these limits requires immediate remedial action by the improvement of existing control measures or implementation of new ones. In fact, preventive interventions should be made at the “action level”, which varies with the country (e.g., one-half or one-fifth of the occupational exposure limit). A low action level is the best assurance of avoiding future problems.

Comparison of exposure assessment results with occupational exposure limits is a simplification, since, among other limitations, many factors which influence the uptake of chemicals (e.g., individual susceptibilities, physical activity and body build) are not accounted for by this procedure. Furthermore, in most workplaces there is simultaneous exposure to many agents; hence a very important issue is that of combined exposures and agent interactions, because the health consequences of exposure to a certain agent alone may differ considerably from the consequences of exposure to this same agent in combination with others, particularly if there is synergism or potentiation of effects.

Measurements for control

Measurements with the purpose of investigating the presence of agents and the patterns of exposure parameters in the work environment can be extremely useful for the planning and design of control measures and work practices. The objectives of such measurements include:

• source identification and characterization
• spotting of critical points in closed systems or enclosures (e.g., leaks)
• determination of propagation paths in the work environment
• comparison of different control interventions
• verification that respirable dust has settled together with the coarse visible dust, when using water sprays
• checking that contaminated air is not coming from an adjacent area.

Direct-reading instruments are extremely useful for control purposes, particularly those which can be used for continuous sampling and reflect what is happening in real time, thus disclosing exposure situations which might not otherwise be detected and which need to be controlled. Examples of such instruments include: photo-ionization detectors, infrared analysers, aerosol meters and detector tubes. When sampling to obtain a picture of the behaviour of contaminants, from the source throughout the work environment, accuracy and precision are not as critical as they would be for exposure assessment.

Recent developments in this type of measurement for control purposes include visualization techniques, one of which is the Picture Mix Exposure—PIMEX (Rosen 1993). This method combines a video image of the worker with a scale showing airborne contaminant concentrations, which are continuously measured, at the breathing zone, with a real-time monitoring instrument, thus making it possible to visualize how the concentration varies while the task is performed. This provides an excellent tool for comparing the relative efficacy of different control measures, such as ventilation and work practices, thus contributing to better design.

Measurements are also needed to assess the efficiency of control measures. In this case, source sampling or area sampling are convenient, alone or in addition to personal sampling, for the assessment of workers’ exposure. In order to assure validity, the locations for “before” and “after” sampling (or measurements) and the techniques used should be the same, or equivalent, in sensitivity, accuracy and precision.

Hazard prevention and control

The primary goal of occupational hygiene is the implementation of appropriate hazard prevention and control measures in the work environment. Standards and regulations, if not enforced, are meaningless for the protection of workers’ health, and enforcement usually requires both monitoring and control strategies. The absence of legally established standards should not be an obstacle to the implementation of the necessary measures to prevent harmful exposures or control them to the lowest level feasible. When serious hazards are obvious, control should be recommended, even before quantitative evaluations are carried out. It may sometimes be necessary to change the classical concept of “recognition-evaluation-control” to “recognition-control-evaluation”, or even to “recognition-control”, if capabilities for evaluation of hazards do not exist. Some examples of hazards in obvious need of action without the necessity of prior environmental sampling are electroplating carried out in an unventilated, small room, or using a jackhammer or sand-blasting equipment with no environmental controls or protective equipment. For such recognized health hazards, the immediate need is control, not quantitative evaluation.

Preventive action should in some way interrupt the chain by which the hazardous agent—a chemical, dust, a source of energy—is transmitted from the source to the worker. There are three major groups of control measures: engineering controls, work practices and personal measures.

The most efficient hazard prevention approach is the application of engineering control measures which prevent occupational exposures by managing the work environment, thus decreasing the need for initiatives on the part of workers or potentially exposed persons. Engineering measures usually require some process modifications or mechanical structures, and involve technical measures that eliminate or reduce the use, generation or release of hazardous agents at their source, or, when source elimination is not possible, engineering measures should be designed to prevent or reduce the spread of hazardous agents into the work environment by:

• containing them
• removing them immediately beyond the source
• interfering with their propagation
• reducing their concentration or intensity.

Control interventions which involve some modification of the source are the best approach because the harmful agent can be eliminated or reduced in concentration or intensity. Source reduction measures include substitution of materials, substitution/modification of processes or equipment and better maintenance of equipment.

When source modifications are not feasible, or are not sufficient to attain the desired level of control, then the release and dissemination of hazardous agents in the work environment should be prevented by interrupting their transmission path through measures such as isolation (e.g., closed systems, enclosures), local exhaust ventilation, barriers and shields, isolation of workers.

Other measures aiming at reducing exposures in the work environment include adequate workplace design, dilution or displacement ventilation, good housekeeping and adequate storage. Labelling and warning signs can assist workers in safe work practices. Monitoring and alarm systems may be required in a control programme. Monitors for carbon monoxide around furnaces, for hydrogen sulphide in sewage work, and for oxygen deficiency in closed spaces are some examples.

Work practices are an important part of control—for example, jobs in which a worker’s work posture can affect exposure, such as whether a worker bends over his or her work. The position of the worker may affect the conditions of exposure (e.g., breathing zone in relation to contaminant source, possibility of skin absorption).

Lastly, occupational exposure can be avoided or reduced by placing a protective barrier on the worker, at the critical entry point for the harmful agent in question (mouth, nose, skin, ear)—that is, the use of personal protective devices. It should be pointed out that all other possibilities of control should be explored before considering the use of personal protective equipment, as this is the least satisfactory means for routine control of exposures, particularly to airborne contaminants.

Other personal preventive measures include education and training, personal hygiene and limitation of exposure time.

Continuous evaluations, through environmental monitoring and health surveillance, should be part of any hazard prevention and control strategy.

Appropriate control technology for the work environment must also encompass measures for the prevention of environmental pollution (air, water, soil), including adequate management of hazardous waste.

Although most of the control principles hereby mentioned apply to airborne contaminants, many are also applicable to other types of hazards. For example, a process can be modified to produce less air contaminants or to produce less noise or less heat. An isolating barrier can isolate workers from a source of noise, heat or radiation.

Far too often prevention dwells on the most widely known measures, such as local exhaust ventilation and personal protective equipment, without proper consideration of other valuable control options, such as alternative cleaner technologies, substitution of materials, modification of processes, and good work practices. It often happens that work processes are regarded as unchangeable when, in reality, changes can be made which effectively prevent or at least reduce the associated hazards.

Hazard prevention and control in the work environment requires knowledge and ingenuity. Effective control does not necessarily require very costly and complicated measures. In many cases, hazard control can be achieved through appropriate technology, which can be as simple as a piece of impervious material between the naked shoulder of a dock worker and a bag of toxic material that can be absorbed through the skin. It can also consist of simple improvements such as placing a movable barrier between an ultraviolet source and a worker, or training workers in safe work practices.

Aspects to be considered when selecting appropriate control strategies and technology, include the type of hazardous agent (nature, physical state, health effects, routes of entry into the body), type of source(s), magnitude and conditions of exposure, characteristics of the workplace and relative location of workstations.

The required skills and resources for the correct design, implementation, operation, evaluation and maintenance of control systems must be ensured. Systems such as local exhaust ventilation must be evaluated after installation and routinely checked thereafter. Only regular monitoring and maintenance can ensure continued efficiency, since even well-designed systems may lose their initial performance if neglected.

Control measures should be integrated into hazard prevention and control programmes, with clear objectives and efficient management, involving multidisciplinary teams made up of occupational hygienists and other occupational health and safety staff, production engineers, management and workers. Programmes must also include aspects such as hazard communication, education and training covering safe work practices and emergency procedures.

Health promotion aspects should also be included, since the workplace is an ideal setting for promoting healthy life-styles in general and for alerting as to the dangers of hazardous non-occupational exposures caused, for example, by shooting without adequate protection, or smoking.

The Links among Occupational Hygiene, Risk Assessment and Risk Management

Risk assessment

Risk assessment is a methodology that aims at characterizing the types of health effects expected as a result of a certain exposure to a given agent, as well as providing estimates on the probability of occurrence of these health effects, at different levels of exposure. It is also used to characterize specific risk situations. It involves hazard identification, the establishment of exposure-effect relationships, and exposure assessment, leading to risk characterization.

The first step refers to the identification of an agent—for example, a chemical—as causing a harmful health effect (e.g., cancer or systemic poisoning). The second step establishes how much exposure causes how much of a given effect in how many of the exposed persons. This knowledge is essential for the interpretation of exposure assessment data.

Exposure assessment is part of risk assessment, both when obtaining data to characterize a risk situation and when obtaining data for the establishment of exposure-effect relationships from epidemiological studies. In the latter case, the exposure that led to a certain occupational or environmentally caused effect has to be accurately characterized to ensure the validity of the correlation.

Although risk assessment is fundamental to many decisions which are taken in the practice of occupational hygiene, it has limited effect in protecting workers’ health, unless translated into actual preventive action in the workplace.

Risk assessment is a dynamic process, as new knowledge often discloses harmful effects of substances until then considered relatively harmless; therefore the occupational hygienist must have, at all times, access to up-to-date toxicological information. Another implication is that exposures should always be controlled to the lowest feasible level.

Figure 3 is presented as an illustration of different elements of risk assessment.

Figure 3. Elements of risk assessment.

Risk management in the work environment

It is not always feasible to eliminate all agents that pose occupational health risks because some are inherent to work processes that are indispensable or desirable; however, risks can and must be managed.

Risk assessment provides a basis for risk management. However, while risk assessment is a scientific procedure, risk management is more pragmatic, involving decisions and actions that aim at preventing, or reducing to acceptable levels, the occurrence of agents which may pose hazards to the health of workers, surrounding communities and the environment, also accounting for the socio-economic and public health context.

Risk management takes place at different levels; decisions and actions taken at the national level pave the way for the practice of risk management at the workplace level.

Risk management at the workplace level requires information and knowledge on:

• health hazards and their magnitude, identified and rated according to risk assessment findings
• legal requirements and standards
• technological feasibility, in terms of the available and applicable control technology
• economic aspects, such as the costs to design, implement, operate and maintain control systems, and cost-benefit analysis (control costs versus financial benefits incurred by controlling occupational and environment hazards)
• human resources (available and required)
• socio-economic and public health context

to serve as a basis for decisions which include:

• establishment of a target for control
• selection of adequate control strategies and technologies
• establishment of priorities for action in view of the risk situation, as well as of the existing socio-economic and public health context (particularly important in developing countries)

and which should lead to actions such as:

• identification/search of financial and human resources (if not yet available)
• design of specific control measures, which should be appropriate for the protection of workers’ health and of the environment, as well as safeguarding as much as possible the natural resource base
• implementation of control measures, including provisions for adequate operation, maintenance and emergency procedures
• establishment of a hazard prevention and control programme with adequate management and including routine surveillance.

Traditionally, the profession responsible for most of these decisions and actions in the workplace is occupational hygiene.

One key decision in risk management, that of acceptable risk (what effect can be accepted, in what percentage of the working population, if any at all?), is usually, but not always, taken at the national policy-making level and followed by the adoption of occupational exposure limits and the promulgation of occupational health regulations and standards. This leads to the establishment of targets for control, usually at the workplace level by the occupational hygienist, who should have knowledge of the legal requirements. However, it may happen that decisions on acceptable risk have to be taken by the occupational hygienist at the workplace level—for example, in situations when standards are not available or do not cover all potential exposures.

All these decisions and actions must be integrated into a realistic plan, which requires multidisciplinary and multisectorial coordination and collaboration. Although risk management involves pragmatic approaches, its efficiency should be scientifically evaluated. Unfortunately risk management actions are, in most cases, a compromise between what should be done to avoid any risk and the best which can be done in practice, in view of financial and other limitations.

Risk management concerning the work environment and the general environment should be well coordinated; not only are there overlapping areas, but, in most situations, the success of one is interlinked with the success of the other.

Occupational Hygiene Programmes and Services

Political will and decision making at the national level will, directly or indirectly, influence the establishment of occupational hygiene programmes or services, either at the governmental or private level. It is beyond the scope of this article to provide detailed models for all types of occupational hygiene programmes and services; however, there are general principles that are applicable to many situations and may contribute to their efficient implementation and operation.

A comprehensive occupational hygiene service should have the capability to carry out adequate preliminary surveys, sampling, measurements and analysis for hazard evaluation and for control purposes, and to recommend control measures, if not to design them.

Key elements of a comprehensive occupational hygiene programme or service are human and financial resources, facilities, equipment and information systems, well organized and coordinated through careful planning, under efficient management, and also involving quality assurance and continuous programme evaluation. Successful occupational hygiene programmes require a policy basis and commitment from top management. The procurement of financial resources is beyond the scope of this article.

Human resources

Adequate human resources constitute the main asset of any programme and should be ensured as a priority. All staff should have clear job descriptions and responsibilities. If needed, provisions for training and education should be made. The basic requirements for occupational hygiene programmes include:

• occupational hygienists—in addition to general knowledge on the recognition, evaluation and control of occupational hazards, occupational hygienists may be specialized in specific areas, such as analytical chemistry or industrial ventilation; the ideal situation is to have a team of well-trained professionals in the comprehensive practice of occupational hygiene and in all required areas of expertise
• laboratory personnel, chemists (depending on the extent of analytical work)
• technicians and assistants, for field surveys and for laboratories, as well as for instrument maintenance and repairs
• information specialists and administrative support.

One important aspect is professional competence, which must not only be achieved but also maintained. Continuous education, in or outside the programme or service, should cover, for example, legislation updates, new advances and techniques, and gaps in knowledge. Participation in conferences, symposia and workshops also contribute to the maintenance of competence.

Health and safety for staff

Health and safety should be ensured for all staff in field surveys, laboratories and offices. Occupational hygienists may be exposed to serious hazards and should wear the required personal protective equipment. Depending on the type of work, immunization may be required. If rural work is involved, depending on the region, provisions such as antidote for snake bites should be made. Laboratory safety is a specialized field discussed elsewhere in this Encyclopaedia.

Occupational hazards in offices should not be overlooked—for example, work with visual display units and sources of indoor pollution such as laser printers, photocopying machines and air-conditioning systems. Ergonomic and psychosocial factors should also be considered.

Facilities

These include offices and meeting room(s), laboratories and equipment, information systems and library. Facilities should be well designed, accounting for future needs, as later moves and adaptations are usually more costly and time consuming.

Occupational hygiene laboratories and equipment

Occupational hygiene laboratories should have in principle the capability to carry out qualitative and quantitative assessment of exposure to airborne contaminants (chemicals and dusts), physical agents (noise, heat stress, radiation, illumination) and biological agents. In the case of most biological agents, qualitative assessments are enough to recommend controls, thus eliminating the need for the usually difficult quantitative evaluations.

Although some direct-reading instruments for airborne contaminants may have limitations for exposure assessment purposes, these are extremely useful for the recognition of hazards and identification of their sources, the determination of peaks in concentration, the gathering of data for control measures, and for checking on controls such as ventilation systems. In connection with the latter, instruments to check air velocity and static pressure are also needed.

One of the possible structures would comprise the following units:

• field equipment (sampling, direct-reading)
• analytical laboratory
• particles laboratory
• physical agents (noise, thermal environment, illumination and radiation)
• workshop for maintenance and repairs of instrumentation.

Whenever selecting occupational hygiene equipment, in addition to performance characteristics, practical aspects have to be considered in view of the expected conditions of use—for example, available infrastructure, climate, location. These aspects include portability, required source of energy, calibration and maintenance requirements, and availability of the required expendable supplies.

Equipment should be purchased only if and when:

• there is a real need
• skills for the adequate operation, maintenance and repairs are available
• the complete procedure has been developed, since it is of no use, for example, to purchase sampling pumps without a laboratory to analyse the samples (or an agreement with an outside laboratory).

Calibration of all types of occupational hygiene measuring and sampling as well as analytical equipment should be an integral part of any procedure, and the required equipment should be available.

Maintenance and repairs are essential to prevent equipment from staying idle for long periods of time, and should be ensured by manufacturers, either by direct assistance or by providing training of staff.

If a completely new programme is being developed, only basic equipment should be initially purchased, more items being added as the needs are established and operational capabilities ensured. However, even before equipment and laboratories are available and operational, much can be achieved by inspecting workplaces to qualitatively assess health hazards, and by recommending control measures for recognized hazards. Lack of capability to carry out quantitative exposure assessments should never justify inaction concerning obviously hazardous exposures. This is particularly true for situations where workplace hazards are uncontrolled and heavy exposures are common.

Information

This includes library (books, periodicals and other publications), databases (e.g. on CD-ROM) and communications.

Whenever possible, personal computers and CD-ROM readers should be provided, as well as connections to the INTERNET. There are ever-increasing possibilities for on-line networked public information servers (World Wide Web and GOPHER sites), which provide access to a wealth of information sources relevant to workers’ health, therefore fully justifying investment in computers and communications. Such systems should include e-mail, which opens new horizons for communications and discussions, either individually or as groups, thus facilitating and promoting exchange of information throughout the world.

Planning

Back