IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v24y2004i5p1201-1213.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Worker Exposure Standard for Phosphine Gas

Author

Listed:
  • Bill Pepelko
  • Joel Seckar
  • Paul R. Harp
  • James H. Kim
  • David Gray
  • Elizabeth L. Anderson

Abstract

The 1998 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP) re‐registration eligibility decision (RED) for phosphine fumigants has generated much interest in defining safe levels of exposure for workers and worker bystanders. This report summarizes the pertinent literature on phosphine toxicity, including animal inhalation studies and human epidemiology studies, and also describes a margin‐of‐exposure (MOE) analysis based on available worker exposure data. In addition, a safe occupational exposure limit is estimated using typical OPP assumptions, after determination of appropriate uncertainty factors, based on quality of data in the principal study and pharmacokinetic considerations. While a conservative 8‐hour time‐weighted average (TWA) of 0.1 ppm was calculated, the overall weight of evidence, from a risk‐management perspective, supports a conclusion that an occupational TWA of 0.3 ppm provides adequate health protection. In addition, a 15‐minute short‐term exposure limit (STEL) of 3 ppm was estimated. Finally, in contrast to the MOE analysis described in the OPP's phosphine RED, the MOE analysis described herein does not indicate that fumigation workers are currently being exposed to unacceptable levels of phosphine. Collectively, these findings support the occupational exposure limits of 0.3 ppm (8‐hour TWA) and 1 ppm (STEL) established in the updated applicator's manuals for phosphine‐generating products, which recently received approval from OPP.

Suggested Citation

  • Bill Pepelko & Joel Seckar & Paul R. Harp & James H. Kim & David Gray & Elizabeth L. Anderson, 2004. "Worker Exposure Standard for Phosphine Gas," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 24(5), pages 1201-1213, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:1201-1213
    DOI: 10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00519.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00519.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.0272-4332.2004.00519.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Douglas L. Weed, 2005. "Weight of Evidence: A Review of Concept and Methods," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 25(6), pages 1545-1557, December.
    2. Michael R. Greenberg & Karen Lowrie, 2016. "Elizabeth Anderson: Cancer Risk Assessment Pioneer," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 36(4), pages 646-649, April.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:24:y:2004:i:5:p:1201-1213. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.