| Summary: | The ever-changing industrial processes which are becoming more globalised as well as the merging of markets in different economies, led to an increased focus on the health and safety of workers in the industries and the mining sector over the past decades. Occupational exposure limits (OELs) have been used for more than half a century as a risk management tool for the prevention of work-related illnesses which may arise from the exposure to a wide variety of hazardous chemical substances in the working environment. Aim: The aim of this study is to analyse comparatively occupational exposure limits (OELs) of hazardous chemical substances from selected groups contained in the Hazardous Chemical Substance Regulations (HCSR) and the Mine Health and Safety Regulations (MHSR) with those of selected developed countries and organisations. Method: The two lists of OELs from South Africa – HCSR and MHSR – were compared with 11 different developed countries and/or organisations namely: Canada (British Colombia), United Kingdom (Health and Safety Executive, HSE), Australia (National Occupational Health and Safety Commission, NOHSC), New Zealand (Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment), Japan (Japan Society for Occupational Health, JSOH), Finland (Ministry of Social Affairs and Health), Germany (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft-DFG), Sweden (Swedish Work Environment Authority) and United States of America (American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, ACGIH, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, OSHA and National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health, NIOSH). The selection of these countries and organisations was done on the basis of their dominance in the literature as well as the availability of the lists containing OELs. The OELs from each country and/or organisation, depending on the nature and characteristics of the said element and/or compound, were categorised into one of four groups, namely: pesticides, metals, dusts and fibres. The geometric means of each country and/or organisation were calculated from the ratios of each list by using the HCSR and MHSR as the denominator respectively. Results: It became evident that South Africa performed poorly when compared to other countries and/or organisations, indicated in this study. OSHA overall had the highest set OELs, in five out of the six comparisons that could be made, thus being less stringent than South Africa’s. Countries and organisations such as Sweden, Japan and Finland have the lowest
overall set OELs for the different groups respectively. Conclusion: South African OELs legislated by both the HCSR and MHSR, are overall higher (less stringent) when compared to those of developed countries and/or organisations. The less stringent nature of South African OELs may be attributed to infrequent rate at which they are updated. The failure to incorporate recent scientific knowledge into OELs may impact on the health of workers. South Africa should follow international best practice and increase the frequency at which OELs are updated. Recommendations: The effectiveness of having two sets of OELs within a country; each applicable to its own industry should be investigated. Attention with regards to the groups lacking attention, i.e. fibres and pesticides should be given priority when revised. Although the other groups should not be disregarded. Duplicate OELs identified in the HCSR should be removed. To prevent duplicate OELs from being established it would be prudent to utilise CAS numbers when referring to substances in addition to their common and chemical names, thus this supports the recommendations made in an earlier study. === MSc (Occupational Hygiene), North-West University, Potchefstroom Campus, 2015
|
|---|
