Historical occupational isocyanate exposure levels in two Canadian provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chun-Yip Hona*, Cheryl E. Petersbc, Katherine J. Jardined & Victoria H. Arrandaledea School of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University, Toronto, Ontario, Canadab CAREX Canada, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canadac Department of Health Sciences, Carleton University, Ottawa, Ontario, Canadad Occupational Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, Ontario, Canadae Dalla Lana School of Public Heath, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, CanadaCONTACT Chun-Yip Hon cyhon@ryerson.ca School of Occupational and Public Health, Ryerson University, 350 Victoria Street, POD 247C, Toronto, Ontario M5B 2K3, CanadaSupplemental data for this article can be accessed at tandfonline.com/uoeh. AIHA and ACGIH members may also access supplementary material at http://oeh.tandfonline.com/.ABSTRACTIsocyanates such as toluene 2, 4-diisocyanate (TDI), methylene bisphenyl isocyanate (MDI), and hexamethylene diisocyanate (HDI) are known sensitizers and exposure to these chemicals can result in isocyanate-induced asthma—the leading cause of occupational asthma. A newly created exposure database was available containing occupational isocyanate measurements spanning 1981–1996 from Ontario and British Columbia (BC)—two of the largest provinces in Canada. The aim was to describe the historical measurements relative to exposure thresholds, ascertain differences in the data between provinces, and identify time trends. Descriptive statistics of the observations were summarized and stratified by isocyanate species and province. Chi-square tests and Student's t-test were performed to determine differences between provinces. To investigate time trends in the odds of a measurement exceeding the limit of detection (LOD) and time-weighted average (TWA), mixed effects logistic regression models were constructed. In total, 6,984 isocyanate measurements were analyzed, the majority of which were below the LOD (79%). Overall, 8.3% of samples were in excess of the 2014 TLV-TWA of 0.005 ppm. Comparing the two provinces, the proportion of samples exceeding the LOD and TLV-TWA was greater in BC for all isocyanate species. Differences in time trends were also observed between provinces—the odds of a sample exceeding the TLV-TWA decreased over time in the case of MDI (Ontario only), TDI (both Ontario and BC), and other isocyanates (BC only). Our finding that a majority of the exposure measurements was below the LOD is similar to that reported by others. Differences between provinces may be due the fact that isocyanates are classified as a designated substance in Ontario and must adhere to specific exposure control regulations. Limitations of the database, such as finite number of variables and measurements available until 1996 only, presents challenges for more in-depth analysis and generalization of results. An argument is made that a Canadian occupational exposure database be maintained to facilitate risk assessments as well as for occupational epidemiology research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".