A strategy for the reduction of formaldehyde concentration in a hospital pathology laboratory

Objectives Formaldehyde is routinely used in pathology laboratories. The threshold limit value of formaldehyde determined by American and Japanese organizations is 0.1 ppm, which is similar to the indoor air quality guideline value (0.08 ppm). Therefore, maintaining low formaldehyde concentrations i...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of occupational health 2019-01, Vol.61 (1), p.135-142
Hauptverfasser: Ogawa, Masanori, Kabe, Isamu, Terauchi, Yasuhiro, Tanaka, Shigeru
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objectives Formaldehyde is routinely used in pathology laboratories. The threshold limit value of formaldehyde determined by American and Japanese organizations is 0.1 ppm, which is similar to the indoor air quality guideline value (0.08 ppm). Therefore, maintaining low formaldehyde concentrations in the workplace is imperative. The purpose of this study was to reduce the concentration of formaldehyde in a hospital pathology laboratory, in which approximately 15 000 pathological diagnoses are conducted yearly, using hardware and software interventions. Methods Although this laboratory had various ventilation systems, the formaldehyde concentration was high. Based on the Japanese work environment measurement system, the workplace was categorized as control class III, suggesting that improvements to workplace conditions were required. First, engineering controls were implemented and workers were asked not to block the ventilation system and not to keep waste fluid tanks open. However, the workplace required further improvement. Next, using a video camera and a formaldehyde detector, we attempted to visually educate workers about how much formaldehyde is emitted from the sample container based on the type of action undertaken. Results After the first intervention, the workplace improved to control class II. Control class II indicates that the workplace condition is between classes I and III; a good workplace condition is classified as class I. Although the work environment was still categorized as control class II after the second intervention, this intervention led to the further improvements. Conclusions The hardware and software interventions and safe working habits were effective in improving the work environment.
ISSN:1348-9585
1341-9145
1348-9585
DOI:10.1002/1348-9585.12018