Air Pollution and Heat Exposure Study in the Workplace in a Glass Manufacturing Unit in India

Air pollution in the workplace environment due to industrial operation have been found to cause serious occupational health hazard. Similarly, heat stress is still most neglected occupational hazard in the tropical and subtropical countries like India. The hot climate augments the heat exposure close to sources like furnaces. In this study an attempt is made to assess air pollution and heat exposure levels to workers in the workplace environment in glass manufacturing unit located in the State of Gujarat, India. Samples for workplace air quality were collected for SPM, SO₂, NO₂ and CO₂ at eight locations. Results of workplace air quality showed 8-hourly average concentrations of SPM: 165–9118 μg/m³, SO₂: 6–9 μg/m³ and NO₂: 5–42 μg/m³, which were below the threshold limit values of workplace environment. The level of CO₂ in workplace air of the plant was found to be in the range 827–2886 μg/m³, which was below TLV but much higher than the normal concentration for CO₂ in the air (585 mg/m³). Indoor heat exposure was studied near the furnace and at various locations in an industrial complex for glass manufacturing. The heat exposure parameters including the air temperature, the wet bulb temperature, and the globe parameters were measured. The Wet Bulb Globe Temperature (WBGT), an indicator of heat, exceeded ACGIH TLVs limits most of the time at all the locations in workplace areas. The recommended duration of work and rest have also been estimated.     

Environmental benchmarks vs. ecological benchmarks for assessment and monitoring in Canada: Is there a difference?

Environmental benchmarks are widely used in Canadian environmental assessment as a standard against which to monitor air or water quality in response to human activities in the environment. Recent work in Canada has developed the concept of ecological benchmarks as a complement to environmental benchmarks. However, implementation of ecological benchmarks may be challenging. This paper presents an analogy between ecological benchmarks and the more commonly used environmental benchmarks, as an attempt to increase understanding and use of ecological benchmarks in resource management, assessment, and monitoring. Ecological benchmarks, and their corresponding indicators, will be challenging to identify and use. However, through the use of the principles of adaptive management, effective ecological indicators and benchmarks can be established. Although it is essential that ecological benchmarks are site-specific, the analogy and general principles outlined here are applicable to assessment and monitoring in any part of the world.     

A modular approach to Integrated Assessment modeling

In this paper, we present a new approach to model coupling that probably forms the methodological basis of a new generation of Integrated Assessment models. This approach respects the knowledge and expertise that is embodied in existing models and encourages their gradual evolution. Modularity is the guiding principle. Our approach is distinguished by the way modules are coupled which is based on an interplay of a job control module, a numerical coupling module, and a couple of stand-alone functional modules. The numerical coupling module - the core component - serves to treat the feedbacks between the functional modules. A first implemented example that couples an economic and a climate module by means of a two-phase meta-optimization is presented here. The algorithm and mathematical structure behind are discussed as well as important features such as convergence behavior and reliability.     

EPA's monitoring program at Love Canal 1980

Summary As stated at the beginning of this paper conclusions reached thus far cannot be discussed in this paper. However, a great deal of information is available for examination.EPA displayed its ability to coordinate widely separated laboratories, both Federal and private, into a smooth working team in a very short period of time. A very comprehensive study plan was also developed and implemented quickly. EPA was fortunate to have already had GCA under contract when the emergency arose. In no small part the success of the field effort was due to the managerial and technical abilities of the GCA team.Within a period of 6 weeks a plan was developed, a prime contractor retained, subcontractors hired, and field activities begun. Within a period of 3 months in excess of 8600 field samples were collected and over 12,000 field and QC samples were analyzed. During this same period 2 major data systems were developed, debugged, and placed into operation.In short this EPA project was probably the most comprehensive multimedia field project ever attempted by EPA and certainly the data is being subjected to the most strenuous quality control measures ever imposed by this Agency. The entire program is presently under peer review and the results are being prepared for publication by EPA Headquarters.Note. Originally intended to be published as part of the special issue on Exposure Monitoring: An International Workshop (Las Vegas, Nevada, October 19–22, 1981).     

A ten year summary of concurrent ambient water column and sediment toxicity tests in the Chesapeake Bay watershed: 1990-1999

The goal of this study was to identify the relative toxicity ofambient areas in the Chesapeake Bay watershed by using a suiteof concurrent water column and sediment toxicity tests at seventy-five ambient stations in 20 Chesapeake Bay rivers from1990 through 1999. Spatial and temporal variability was examinedat selected locations throughout the 10 yr study. Inorganicand organic contaminants were evaluated in ambient water andsediment concurrently with water column and sediment tests toassess possible causes of toxicity although absolute causalitycan not be established. Multivariate statistical analysis wasused to develop a multiple endpoint toxicity index (TOX-INDEX) at each station for both water column and sediment toxicity data. Water column tests from the 10 yr testing period showed that49% of the time, some degree of toxicity was reported. The mosttoxic sites based on water column results were located inurbanized areas such as the Anacostia River, Elizabeth River andthe Middle River. Water quality criteria for copper, lead,mercury, nickel and zinc were exceeded at one or more of thesesites. Water column toxicity was also reported in localizedareas of the South and Chester Rivers. Both spatial and temporalvariability was reported from the suite of water column toxicitytests. Some degree of sediment toxicity was reported from 62% of the tests conducted during the ten year period. The ElizabethRiver and Baltimore Harbor stations were reported as the most toxic areas based on sediment results.Sediment toxicity guidelines were exceeded for one or more of thefollowing metals at these two locations: arsenic, cadmium,chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc. At the Elizabeth Riverstations nine of sixteen semi-volatile organics and two of sevenpesticides measured exceeded the ER-M values in 1990. Ambientsediment toxicity tests in the Elizabeth River in 1996 showedreduced toxicity. Various semi-volatile organics exceeded the ER-M values at a number of Baltimore Harbor sites; pyrene anddibenzo(a,h)anthracene were particularly high at one of thestations (Northwest Harbor). Localized sediment toxicity was alsoreported in the Chester, James, Magothy, Rappahannock, andPotomac Rivers but the link with contaminants was not determined.Both spatial and temporal variability was less for sedimenttoxicity data when compared with water column toxicity data. Acomparison of water column and sediment toxicity data for thevarious stations over the 10 yr study showed that approximatelyhalf the time agreement occurred (either both suite of testsshowed toxicity or neither suite of tests showed toxicity).