PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Historically, the use of asbestos in steelmaking has been limited to a few applications. Due to its physical and chemical properties, asbestos was not necessary or suitable for most purposes in a steel mill. The few applications where asbestos were used (i.e., certain gaskets, brakes, protective cloth, refractory materials, insulation materials, and hot top products) were replaced by alternative materials as they became available.
OBJECTIVE: We discuss historical uses of asbestos in steel manufacturing and the associated airborne asbestos concentrations collected at sixteen U. S. Steel facilities between 1972 and 2006.
METHODS: A total of 495 personal airborne asbestos samples from the U. S. Steel industrial hygiene records were analyzed across four time periods corresponding to changes in the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos. 68% of the samples (n = 337) were considered representative of an employee\'s workday. The remaining samples (n = 158) represented task samples. Samples were grouped by facility, department, and job category within the four time periods.
RESULTS: The average fiber concentrations measured for each facility and department over time were below the contemporaneous OSHA PEL. The mean representative workday asbestos air concentration from 1972 and 1975 was 1.09 f/cc. The mean representative workday concentration decreased to 0.13 f/cc between 1976 and 1985, then decreased again to 0.02 f/cc between 1986 and 1993 and 0.03 f/cc between 1994 and 2006. For task samples, the mean air concentration from 1972 to 1975 was 3.29 f/cc. The mean task sample concentration decreased to 0.48 f/cc between 1976 and 1985, then decreased again to 0.01 f/cc between 1986 and 1993 and 0.03 f/cc between 1994 and 2006. Only eleven out of the 495 samples (2.2%), for both task and representative workday samples, were in exceedance of the contemporaneous PEL(as an 8-hour TWA), ten of which occurred prior to 1978. Eight of these eleven PEL exceeding samples were task samples. Of the remaining three representative workday samples, two had unknown sampling times.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents an analysis of all the available personal sampling data for airborne asbestos across 16 facilities of the U. S. Steel Corporation between 1972 and 2006. This dataset has previously never been publicly shared or analyzed. It represents one of the more complete industrial hygiene datasets from a corporation to be presented in a scientific journal and, due to the similarities in the processes at each mill, it should reflect analogous exposures throughout the steelmaking industry in the United States. One of the benefits of presenting these data is that it also provides insight into where asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were used in the steel making process. This is just one example of a large firm that released information that had previously remained in file cabinets for decades. We believe that another benefit of publishing this paper is that it may encourage the largest firms in industry to assemble and analyze their industrial hygiene data to benefit the occupational hygiene, medical, and epidemiology communities. This can support future epidemiology studies and improve the design of future industrial hygiene programs.
OBJECTIVE: We discuss historical uses of asbestos in steel manufacturing and the associated airborne asbestos concentrations collected at sixteen U. S. Steel facilities between 1972 and 2006.
METHODS: A total of 495 personal airborne asbestos samples from the U. S. Steel industrial hygiene records were analyzed across four time periods corresponding to changes in the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL) for asbestos. 68% of the samples (n = 337) were considered representative of an employee\'s workday. The remaining samples (n = 158) represented task samples. Samples were grouped by facility, department, and job category within the four time periods.
RESULTS: The average fiber concentrations measured for each facility and department over time were below the contemporaneous OSHA PEL. The mean representative workday asbestos air concentration from 1972 and 1975 was 1.09 f/cc. The mean representative workday concentration decreased to 0.13 f/cc between 1976 and 1985, then decreased again to 0.02 f/cc between 1986 and 1993 and 0.03 f/cc between 1994 and 2006. For task samples, the mean air concentration from 1972 to 1975 was 3.29 f/cc. The mean task sample concentration decreased to 0.48 f/cc between 1976 and 1985, then decreased again to 0.01 f/cc between 1986 and 1993 and 0.03 f/cc between 1994 and 2006. Only eleven out of the 495 samples (2.2%), for both task and representative workday samples, were in exceedance of the contemporaneous PEL(as an 8-hour TWA), ten of which occurred prior to 1978. Eight of these eleven PEL exceeding samples were task samples. Of the remaining three representative workday samples, two had unknown sampling times.
CONCLUSIONS: This paper presents an analysis of all the available personal sampling data for airborne asbestos across 16 facilities of the U. S. Steel Corporation between 1972 and 2006. This dataset has previously never been publicly shared or analyzed. It represents one of the more complete industrial hygiene datasets from a corporation to be presented in a scientific journal and, due to the similarities in the processes at each mill, it should reflect analogous exposures throughout the steelmaking industry in the United States. One of the benefits of presenting these data is that it also provides insight into where asbestos-containing materials (ACMs) were used in the steel making process. This is just one example of a large firm that released information that had previously remained in file cabinets for decades. We believe that another benefit of publishing this paper is that it may encourage the largest firms in industry to assemble and analyze their industrial hygiene data to benefit the occupational hygiene, medical, and epidemiology communities. This can support future epidemiology studies and improve the design of future industrial hygiene programs.
摘要：
背景：历史上，石棉在炼钢中的使用仅限于少数应用。由于其物理和化学性质，在钢铁厂的大多数用途中，石棉是不必要的或不适合的。使用石棉的少数应用(即，某些垫圈,刹车,防护布,耐火材料,绝缘材料,和热顶级产品)被替代材料取代，因为它们变得可用。
目的：我们讨论了石棉在钢铁制造中的历史用途以及1972年至2006年在16个美国钢铁设施中收集的相关空气中石棉浓度。
方法：对来自美国钢铁工业卫生记录的495份个人气载石棉样本进行了分析，分析了4个时间段内对应于石棉OSHA允许接触限值（PEL）的变化。68%的样本(n=337)被认为代表员工的工作日。剩余的样本(n=158)表示任务样本。样品按设施分组，部门,四个时间段内的工作类别。
结果：随着时间的推移，每个设施和部门测得的平均纤维浓度低于同期的OSHAPEL。1972年和1975年的平均代表性工作日石棉空气浓度为1.09f/cc。在1976年至1985年之间，平均代表性工作日浓度降至0.13f/cc，然后在1986年至1993年之间再次降至0.02f/cc，在1994年至2006年之间降至0.03f/cc。对于任务示例，1972年至1975年的平均空气浓度为3.29f/cc。平均任务样品浓度在1976年至1985年之间降至0.48f/cc，然后在1986年至1993年之间再次降至0.01f/cc，在1994年至2006年之间降至0.03f/cc。495个样本中只有11个(2.2%)，对于任务和代表性工作日样本，超过同期PEL(作为8小时TWA)，其中10次发生在1978年之前。这11个PEL超标样品中有8个是任务样品。在其余三个代表性工作日样本中，两人的采样时间未知。
结论：本文分析了1972年至2006年美国钢铁公司16个工厂的所有可用的个人采样数据。该数据集以前从未公开共享或分析过。它代表了来自公司的更完整的工业卫生数据集之一，将在科学杂志上发表，由于每个工厂的工艺相似，它应该反映美国整个炼钢行业的类似风险。提供这些数据的好处之一是，它还可以深入了解在炼钢过程中使用含石棉材料（ACM）的位置。这只是一家大公司发布信息的一个例子，这些信息以前在文件柜中保留了几十年。我们认为，发表这篇论文的另一个好处是，它可能会鼓励工业中最大的公司收集和分析他们的工业卫生数据，以有利于职业卫生，medical,和流行病学社区。这可以支持未来的流行病学研究，并改善未来工业卫生计划的设计。
目的：我们讨论了石棉在钢铁制造中的历史用途以及1972年至2006年在16个美国钢铁设施中收集的相关空气中石棉浓度。
方法：对来自美国钢铁工业卫生记录的495份个人气载石棉样本进行了分析，分析了4个时间段内对应于石棉OSHA允许接触限值（PEL）的变化。68%的样本(n=337)被认为代表员工的工作日。剩余的样本(n=158)表示任务样本。样品按设施分组，部门,四个时间段内的工作类别。
结果：随着时间的推移，每个设施和部门测得的平均纤维浓度低于同期的OSHAPEL。1972年和1975年的平均代表性工作日石棉空气浓度为1.09f/cc。在1976年至1985年之间，平均代表性工作日浓度降至0.13f/cc，然后在1986年至1993年之间再次降至0.02f/cc，在1994年至2006年之间降至0.03f/cc。对于任务示例，1972年至1975年的平均空气浓度为3.29f/cc。平均任务样品浓度在1976年至1985年之间降至0.48f/cc，然后在1986年至1993年之间再次降至0.01f/cc，在1994年至2006年之间降至0.03f/cc。495个样本中只有11个(2.2%)，对于任务和代表性工作日样本，超过同期PEL(作为8小时TWA)，其中10次发生在1978年之前。这11个PEL超标样品中有8个是任务样品。在其余三个代表性工作日样本中，两人的采样时间未知。
结论：本文分析了1972年至2006年美国钢铁公司16个工厂的所有可用的个人采样数据。该数据集以前从未公开共享或分析过。它代表了来自公司的更完整的工业卫生数据集之一，将在科学杂志上发表，由于每个工厂的工艺相似，它应该反映美国整个炼钢行业的类似风险。提供这些数据的好处之一是，它还可以深入了解在炼钢过程中使用含石棉材料（ACM）的位置。这只是一家大公司发布信息的一个例子，这些信息以前在文件柜中保留了几十年。我们认为，发表这篇论文的另一个好处是，它可能会鼓励工业中最大的公司收集和分析他们的工业卫生数据，以有利于职业卫生，medical,和流行病学社区。这可以支持未来的流行病学研究，并改善未来工业卫生计划的设计。
