The effects and extent of 1,1,1-trichloroethane vapor concentration exposure on workers during solvent vapor degreasing

This study attempted to determine if an excessive amount of 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane was released into the air, the acute effects of exposure and the cause(s) of excessive use. The types of degreasing equipments which were tested in this study are straight vapor and the vapor spray machines. The instruments utilized to obtain the data for this study are Gastech Haline Detector, Organic Vapor Monitor Badge and Personal Sampling Pump. Readings were taken on three different tanks. The data accumulated by this study were obtained during actual cleaning operation. During testing, increased exposure was detected due to exceeding the rate of removal, downward drafts were blowing right over the top of a degreaser and, in some cases, poor general ventilation caused solvent vapor to be blown out of the tank and into the workers' breathing zone, affecting excessive vapor drag out and solvent loss. The results show that, since the characteristics of solvent 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane are well suited to vapor degreasing requirements, by using proper procedures and maintenance, 1,1,1 - Trichloroethane emission during vapor degreasing can be controlled at levels well below the industrial hygiene standard established by OSHA for safe and healthful conditions.

A State and Territorial Survey Regarding Utilization of Environmental Health Shelter Assessments during Disasters, and a Secondary Analysis of Available Shelter Assessment Data

Disasters are complex events characterized by damage to key infrastructure and population displacements into disaster shelters. Assessing the living environment in shelters during disasters is a crucial health security concern. Until now, jurisdictional knowledge and preparedness on those assessment methods, or deficiencies found in shelters is limited. A cross-sectional survey (STUSA survey) ascertained knowledge and preparedness for those assessments in all 50 states, DC, and 5 US territories. Descriptive analysis of overall knowledge and preparedness was performed. Fisher’s exact statistics analyzed differences between two groups: jurisdiction type and population size. Two logistic regression models analyzed earthquakes and hurricane risks as predictors of knowledge and preparedness. A convenience sample of state shelter assessments records (n=116) was analyzed to describe environmental health deficiencies found during selected events. Overall, 55 (98%) of jurisdictions responded (states and territories) and appeared to be knowledgeable of these assessments (states 92%, territories 100%, p = 1.000), and engaged in disaster planning with shelter partners (states 96%, territories 83%, p = 0.564). Few had shelter assessment procedures (states 53%, territories 50%, p = 1.000); or training in disaster shelter assessments (states 41%, 60% territories, p = 0.638). Knowledge or preparedness was not predicted by disaster risks, population size, and jurisdiction type in neither model. Knowledge: hurricane (Adjusted OR 0.69, 95% C.I. 0.06-7.88); earthquake (OR 0.82, 95% C.I. 0.17-4.06); and both risks (OR 1.44, 95% C.I. 0.24-8.63); preparedness model: hurricane (OR 1.91, 95% C.I. 0.06-20.69); earthquake (OR 0.47, 95% C.I. 0.7-3.17); and both risks (OR 0.50, 95% C.I. 0.06-3.94). Environmental health deficiencies documented in shelter assessments occurred mostly in: sanitation (30%); facility (17%); food (15%); and sleeping areas (12%); and during ice storms and tornadoes. More research is needed in the area of environmental health assessments of disaster shelters, particularly, in those areas that may provide better insight into the living environment of all shelter occupants and potential effects in disaster morbidity and mortality. Also, to evaluate the effectiveness and usefulness of these assessments methods and the data available on environmental health deficiencies in risk management to protect those at greater risk in shelter facilities during disasters.