William P King

Pittsburgh Technical Institute, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States

Are you William P King?

Claim your profile

Publications (3)11.22 Total impact

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Access “The Action Level”® Questions online at: http://www.acgih.org/products/joeh/alquestions.htm Access “The Action Level”® Answers online at: http://www.acgih.org/products/joeh/alanswers.htm Access “The Action Level”® Registration Form online at: https://www.acgih.org/products/joeh/alregfrm.htm “The Action Level,”®, a self-study, continuing education program, provides a convenient and interesting opportunity for individuals to expand their knowledge in relevant areas of industrial hygiene, as well as occupational and environmental safety and health. The program is approved by both the American Board of Industrial Hygiene, and the Board of Certified Safety Professionals, which award Certification Maintenance (CM) points and Continuance of Certification (COC) points, respectively, for successful participation.Participants must answer “The Action Level,”® questions after reading all corresponding articles, and then submit a completed answer sheet. Answer sheets are located at the end of each issue's “The Action Level,”® column and may be mailed, faxed, or emailed. Answers may also be submitted using the electronic answer form at https://www.acgih.org/products/joeh/alquestions.htm. To earn the designated CM or COC credit, a score of 70 percent or better is required within a 12-month period. Certified Industrial Hygienists and Certified Associate Industrial Hygienists may earn 2 points per year. Certified Safety Professionals may earn 1.2 points per year.Enrollment is possible each month, but points are awarded only four times each year—in March, June, September, and December—to participants who score an average of 70 percent or better within each three-month period. If you register in February 2013, you will receive 0.5 CM points and/or 0.3 COC points after you have completed answer sheets for February and March, 2013, and scored a 70 percent or better average on them (only in your first quarter of enrollment, if enrolling in the middle of the quarter, will you be permitted to submit answer sheets for two months and receive full credit; three answer sheets are required for all other quarters). In the next quarter, you'll receive 0.5 CM points and/or 0.3 COC points after satisfactorily completing answer sheets for the April, May, and June 2013 issues, and so on.To enroll, complete the registration form and the answer sheet at the end of this “The Action Level,”® column or register online at https://www.acgih.org/products/joeh/alregfrm.htm. The cost is $219 (ACGIH\smash® AIHA members)/$249 (nonmembers) for one year. Nonmembers are encouraged to become members to take advantage of the member discount. For more information regarding ACGIH® membership, call 513-742-2020, or apply online at http://www.acgih.org/members/memberform.htm.Checks must be in U.S. currency, drawn on a U.S. bank, and payable to ACGIH®. We also accept AmEx, MasterCard, Discover and Visa. This continuing education program fee is separate from the Journal subscription cost. The fee covers administration costs, and is nonrefundable. Submissions must be received by the date listed on each answer sheet.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2012 · Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Few studies have quantified the dispersion of potentially infectious bioaerosols produced by patients in the health care environment and the exposure of health care workers to these particles. Controlled studies are needed to assess the spread of bioaerosols and the efficacy of different types of respiratory personal protective equipment (PPE) in preventing airborne disease transmission. An environmental chamber was equipped to simulate a patient coughing aerosol particles into a medical examination room, and a health care worker breathing while exposed to these particles. The system has three main parts: (1) a coughing simulator that expels an aerosol-laden cough through a head form; (2) a breathing simulator with a second head form that can be fitted with respiratory PPE; and (3) aerosol particle counters to measure concentrations inside and outside the PPE and at locations throughout the room. Dispersion of aerosol particles with optical diameters from 0.3 to 7.5 μm was evaluated along with the influence of breathing rate, room ventilation, and the locations of the coughing and breathing simulators. Penetration of cough aerosol particles through nine models of surgical masks and respirators placed on the breathing simulator was measured at 32 and 85 L/min flow rates and compared with the results from a standard filter tester. Results show that cough-generated aerosol particles spread rapidly throughout the room, and that within 5 min, a worker anywhere in the room would be exposed to potentially hazardous aerosols. Aerosol exposure is highest with no personal protective equipment, followed by surgical masks, and the least exposure is seen with N95 FFRs. These differences are seen regardless of breathing rate and relative position of the coughing and breathing simulators. These results provide a better understanding of the exposure of workers to cough aerosols from patients and of the relative efficacy of different types of respiratory PPE, and they will assist investigators in providing research-based recommendations for effective respiratory protection strategies in health care settings.
    Full-text · Article · Dec 2012 · Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The potential for aerosol transmission of infectious influenza virus (ie, in healthcare facilities) is controversial. We constructed a simulated patient examination room that contained coughing and breathing manikins to determine whether coughed influenza was infectious and assessed the effectiveness of an N95 respirator and surgical mask in blocking transmission. National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health aerosol samplers collected size-fractionated aerosols for 60 minutes at the mouth of the breathing manikin, beside the mouth, and at 3 other locations in the room. Total recovered virus was quantitated by quantitative polymerase chain reaction and infectivity was determined by the viral plaque assay and an enhanced infectivity assay. Infectious influenza was recovered in all aerosol fractions (5.0% in >4 μm aerodynamic diameter, 75.5% in 1-4 μm, and 19.5% in <1 μm; n = 5). Tightly sealing a mask to the face blocked entry of 94.5% of total virus and 94.8% of infectious virus (n = 3). A tightly sealed respirator blocked 99.8% of total virus and 99.6% of infectious virus (n = 3). A poorly fitted respirator blocked 64.5% of total virus and 66.5% of infectious virus (n = 3). A mask documented to be loosely fitting by a PortaCount fit tester, to simulate how masks are worn by healthcare workers, blocked entry of 68.5% of total virus and 56.6% of infectious virus (n = 2). These results support a role for aerosol transmission and represent the first reported laboratory study of the efficacy of masks and respirators in blocking inhalation of influenza in aerosols. The results indicate that a poorly fitted respirator performs no better than a loosely fitting mask.
    Full-text · Article · Mar 2012 · Clinical Infectious Diseases