Personal protective equipment for preventing asbestos exposure in workers
Background Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos‐related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight‐hour average. Different ty...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Cochrane database of systematic reviews 2024-05, Vol.2024 (5), p.CD015158 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Background
Asbestos exposure can lead to asbestos‐related diseases. The European Union (EU) has adopted regulations for workplaces where asbestos is present. The EU occupational exposure limit (OEL) for asbestos is 0.1 fibres per cubic centimetre of air (f/cm3) as an eight‐hour average. Different types of personal protective equipment (PPE) are available to provide protection and minimise exposure; however, their effectiveness is unclear.
Objectives
To assess the effects of personal protective equipment (PPE), including donning and doffing procedures and individual hygienic behaviour, compared to no availability and use of such equipment or alternative equipment, on asbestos exposure in workers in asbestos demolition and repair work.
Search methods
We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, and Scopus (September 2022), and we checked the reference lists of included studies.
Selection criteria
We included studies that measured asbestos concentration outside and inside PPE (considering outside concentration a surrogate for no PPE), exposure to asbestos after doffing PPE, donning and doffing errors, nonadherence to regulations, and adverse effects of PPE.
Data collection and analysis
Two review authors selected studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using ROBINS‐I. We categorised PPE as full‐face filtering masks, supplied air respirators (SARs), and powered air‐purifying respirators (PAPRs). Values for asbestos outside and inside PPE were transformed to logarithmic values for random‐effects meta‐analysis. Pooled logarithmic mean differences (MDs) were exponentiated to obtain the ratio of means (RoM) and 95% confidence interval (95% CI). The RoM shows the degree of protection provided by the respirators (workplace protection factor). Since the RoM is likely to be much higher at higher outside concentrations, we presented separate results according to the outside asbestos concentration, as follows.
• Below 0.01 f/cm3 (band 1)
• 0.01 f/cm3 to below 0.1 f/cm3 (band 2)
• 0.1 f/cm3 to below 1 f/cm3 (band 3)
• 1 f/cm3 to below 10 f/cm3 (band 4)
• 10 f/cm3 to below 100 f/cm3 (band 5)
• 100 f/cm3 to below 1000 f/cm3 (band 6)
Additionally, we determined whether the inside concentrations per respirator and concentration band complied with the current EU OEL (0.1 f/cm3) and proposed EU OEL (0.01 f/cm3).
Main results
We identified six studies that measured asbestos concentrations outside and inside respiratory protective equipment (RPE) and one cross‐over study tha |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1465-1858 1469-493X 1465-1858 1469-493X |
DOI: | 10.1002/14651858.CD015158.pub2 |