Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A comparison of occupational exposure limits in Asia and Europe
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-3799-4814
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Philosophy and History of Technology, Philosophy.ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0071-3919
2011 (English)In: Toxicology Letters, ISSN 0378-4274, E-ISSN 1879-3169, Vol. 205, S241-S241 p.Article in journal (Other academic) Published
Abstract [en]

Occupational exposure limits (OELs) are used as a risk management tool aiming at protecting against negative health effects due to occupational exposure to harmful substances. The systems of OELs development have not been standardized and the divergent outcomes have been reported. However some harmonization process has been initiated, primary in Europe. This study aims at analysis of the state of harmonization in a more global context. The OELs systems of eight Asian and seventeen European organizations are analyzed with respect to: (1) the information regarding each organization's system for determining OELs; (2) similarity of substance selection in each system; (3) similarity of value levels of OEL. The analysis shows that the majority of investigated organizations declare to be influenced by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) systems, what in many cases is empirically confirmed. The EU harmonization process is also reflected in results showing the trends of convergence within the EU. However, the comparisons of Asian and European organisations indicate that there is no obvious evidence that OELs are becoming globally harmonized.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
2011. Vol. 205, S241-S241 p.
National Category
Pharmacology and Toxicology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-39015DOI: 10.1016/j.toxlet.2011.05.823ISI: 000293814500771OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-39015DiVA: diva2:439158
Available from: 2011-09-06 Created: 2011-09-06 Last updated: 2017-12-08Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text

Other links

Publisher's full text

Authority records BETA

Schenk, Linda

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Ding, QianSchenk, LindaMalkiewicz, KatarzynaHansson, Sven Ove
By organisation
Philosophy
In the same journal
Toxicology Letters
Pharmacology and Toxicology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 117 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • harvard1
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf