Article

Hazard prevention and control in the work environment. Report of a WHO meeting.

Safety Science Group, Delft University of Technology, The Netherlands.
International Journal of Occupational Medicine and Environmental Health (Impact Factor: 1.31). 02/1995; 8(1):7-10. DOI: 10.1016/0925-7535(95)00007-0
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT On the 19-21 September 1994 an international meeting of experts was convened at the World Health Organization office in Geneva. The result of this meeting was the formation of the PACE working group. PACE stands for 'Prevention And Control Exchange'. It is a programme designed to stimulate the sharing of solutions and control measures in order to reduce occupational hazards. Internationally there is wide agreement on the need for sharing of knowledge and a realisation that a collaborate effort is required.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
212 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: To achieve a coherent programme of topics for research in occupational health and safety, with well founded priorities and to relate them to perceived gaps and needs in The Netherlands. In the first phase of the study 33 key informants were interviewed. In the second phase questionnaires were sent to 150 Dutch experts (including the key informants). Four groups were recruited, originating from: occupational health and safety services; scientific research institutes; governmental and other administrative bodies; and companies. Using the Delphi technique, the experts were asked to prioritize several topics, which were placed under different headings. In the third phase five workshops were organised to elaborate on the highly prioritized topics. The response rates were 86% for the first and 81% for the second questionnaire. In the second round consistency was reached and consensus proved to be satisfactory; so that the Delphi process was stopped. There were surprisingly few differences in opinion between the four groups. The most important heading was "design/implementation/evaluation of measures", in which the topic cost-benefit analysis of measures had the highest score. "Assessment of relations between exposure and effect" was the second most important heading. Under this heading, topics on work stress were generally judged to be more important than topics on safety and biological, chemical, and physical hazards. The headings "occupational rehabilitation/sociomedical guidance" and "occupational health care/occupational health services" had about the sam priority, closely following the heading "assessment of relations between exposure and effect". The general agreement on priorities should provide a sufficiently broad basis for decision makers to initiate a long term programme for occupational health research and development in The Netherlands.
    Occupational and Environmental Medicine 08/1997; 54(7):504-10. · 3.22 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Several attempts have been made to develop strategies for an effective control of workplace hazards. This paper will focus on the results of a European project called Solbase, which is a databank for solutions to occupational hazards and risks. The Safety Science Group of Delft University of Technology in collaboration with TNO Work and Organisation (formerly NIA-TNO) designed Solbase in a series of projects funded by the Dutch Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment and the European Commission. It consists of the design of and software for a databank with an intelligent navigation system allowing users two principal entry points, which correspond to two basic types of solutions. The first entry point is based on the production process, subdivided into the production principle and production function. This entry point provides the dissemination of solutions within and between branches of industry. The second entry point includes the hazard and its emission and transmission as an access point for more conventional occupational hygiene control measures. With the partners of the consortium, from Spain, Italy, Ireland, Germany, the UK and The Netherlands, 535 new and existing solutions throughout Europe and the world were gathered to test the software and the solutions during a field study. Despite the relatively small number of 'test solutions' used, 54% of the search actions in the field study resulted in a useful and suitable solution which the company could actually put into practice. The companies characterized the software as very user friendly. The reproducibility of the coding system for solutions, the classification tree, was satisfactory. Most coders chose the same keywords from the classification tree to describe a corresponding solution. Solbase is a good searching machine for workplace solutions. Especially, the classification of production processes is an inherent guarantee of an exchange of information across the borders of a specific company or branch of industry.
    Annals of Occupational Hygiene 11/2003; 47(7):541-7. · 2.16 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Control banding (CB) strategies offer simplified solutions for controlling worker exposures to constituents often encountered in the workplace. The original CB model was developed within the pharmaceutical industry; however, the modern movement involves models developed for non-experts to input hazard and exposure potential information for bulk chemical processes, receiving control advice as a result. The CB approach utilizes these models for the dissemination of qualitative and semiquantitative risk assessment tools being developed to complement the traditional industrial hygiene model of air sampling and analysis. It is being applied and tested in small- and medium-sized enterprises within developed countries and industrially developing countries; however, large enterprises have also incorporated these strategies within chemical safety programs. Existing research of the components of the most available CB model, the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Essentials, has shown that exposure bands do not always provide adequate margins of safety, that there is a high rate of under-control errors, that it works better with dusts than with vapors, that there is an inherent inaccuracy in estimating variability, and that when taken together the outcomes of this model may lead to potentially inappropriate workplace confidence in chemical exposure reduction in some operations. Alternatively, large-scale comparisons of industry exposure data to this CB model's outcomes have indicated more promising results with a high correlation seen internationally. With the accuracy of the toxicological ratings and hazard band classification currently in question, their proper re-evaluation will be of great benefit to the reliability of existing and future CB models. The need for a more complete analysis of CB model components and, most importantly, a more comprehensive prospective research process remains. This analysis will be important in understanding implications of the model's overall effectiveness. Since the CB approach is now being used worldwide with an even broader implementation in progress, further research toward understanding its strengths and weaknesses will assist in its further refinement and confidence in its ongoing utility.
    Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene 06/2008; 5(5):330-46. · 1.28 Impact Factor