Exposure Surveillance in New Zealand and Australia
In this section, we review the exposure surveillance data and methods currently available in Australia and New Zealand. A more detailed review can be found in Review of Australian and New Zealand Workplace Exposure Surveillance Systems: NOHSAC Technical Report 6.
Literature Review
A review of published literature from publicly-funded research on Australian and New Zealand exposure surveillance and control system surveillance has revealed that neither appears to have a prominent role in OH&S at a national or regional level.
A number of studies focused on a range of physical, chemical, biological and psychosocial exposures, and a variety of occupations, industries and exposure circumstances. A few reported on detailed exposure systems for particular companies or, for petroleum production and aluminium production, particular industry sectors. In some cases, the exposure measurements prompted, or were likely to prompt, a specific response to control the exposures in some way, but this did not appear to be part of a formal exposure surveillance system.
Quantitative information on exposures is available from studies examining the relationship between an exposure and a particular outcome and collecting exposure information as part of the investigation. However, these studies were also not conducted as part of exposure surveillance, and did not arise as a result of exposure surveillance
| TABLE 1A | Exposures and settings covered in New Zealand-based studies | ||
| EXPOSURE | SETTING | REFERENCEi | |
| Physical | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Physical hazards | Chainsaw felling | Bentley, 2005 | |
| Noise | Flight crew | Taylor, 2004 | |
| Cosmic rays | Farming | McBride, 2003 | |
| Chemical | |||
| Environmental tobacco smoke | Various workplaces | Jones, 2001 | |
| Blood lead | Lead workers | Grant, 1992 | |
| Biological | |||
| Sharps exposures | Health sector | Lum, 1997 | |
| Psychosocial | |||
| Fatigue | Forestry workers | Lilley, 2002 | |
| Other | |||
| Various | Plywood mill workers | Fransman, 2003 | |
| Various | Boat building | Ruttenburg, 2001 | |
| Respiratory controls | Welders | Slater, 2000 | |
| General | Various | Haque, 2000 | |
| i: Full references are contained within “Review of Australian & New Zealand Workplace Exposure Surveillance Systems”: NOHSAC Technical Report 6 |
|||
| TABLE 1B | Exposures and settings covered in Australian-based studies | ||
| EXPOSURE | SETTING | REFERENCEii | |
| Physical | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Noise | Farming, radio announcing | Williams, 2003 | |
| Depczynski, 2005 | |||
| Radiation | Positron emission technology operation | Roberts, 2005 | |
| UV-B radiation | Farming | Airey, 1997 | |
| Hypoxic atmosphere | Air force | Cable, 2003 | |
| Threats of violence | Health sector | Benveniste, 2005 | |
| Knott, 2005 | |||
| Lyneham, 2000 | |||
| Magin, 2005 | |||
| Mayhew, 2003 | |||
| Tolhurst, 2003 | |||
| Chemical | |||
| Benzene | Petroleum industry | Black, 2004 | |
| Glass, 2000, 2001, 2001, 2005 | |||
| Methylene-bis-Ortho-ChloroAniline (MOCA) | Manufacturing industry | Wan, 1989 | |
| Dust | Coal mining | Kizil, 2002 | |
| Environmental tobacco smoke | Various | Borland, 1997 | |
| Cameron, 2003 | |||
| Other | Use of expert panels | Benke, 1997 | |
| Biological | |||
| Sharps exposures | Health sector | Bowden, 1993 | |
| Charles, 2003 | |||
| deVries, 1994 | |||
| MacDonald, 1995 | |||
| Mallon, 1992 | |||
| Richards, 1997 | |||
| Smith, 2005 | |||
| Whitby, 2002 | |||
| Blood-borne infection | Beauty therapists | Murtagh, 2004 | |
| Wood dust and endotoxins | Woodworking | Alwis, 1999 | |
| Mandryl, 2000 | |||
| Aspergillus | Construction work | Cooper, 2003 | |
| Bat lyssavirus | Various occupations | McCall, 2000 | |
| Psychosocial | |||
| Traumatic events | Peri-operative nurses | Michael, 2001 | |
| Fatigue | Transport industry | Arnold, 1996 | |
| Dalziel, 1997 | |||
| Other | |||
| Various | Aluminium industry | Benke, 2000, 2001 | |
| Various | Seafood industry | Lopata, 2004 | |
| Various | Veterinary nurses | Van Soest, 2004 | |
| Various | Veterinarians | Jeyaretnam, 2000 | |
| ii: Full references are contained within “Review of Australian & New Zealand Workplace Exposure Surveillance Systems”: NOHSAC Technical Report 6 |
|||
Survey of Current Exposure Surveillance Systems in Australia and New Zealand
Australian survey
The main finding of the Australian survey was that exposure surveillance is not widely carried out in Australia. The major exceptions to this appear to be among large, multinational companies and perhaps some universities.
The three multinational companies that returned completed questionnaires appeared to have sophisticated exposure surveillance built into their risk-management schemes. However, the systems were purpose built and, although they were usually common within organisations, differed between organisations.
Several universities reported monitoring exposures in laboratories, and it is likely that all universities with laboratory-based research have some form of exposure surveillance. However, these systems were specific to each university, and may well have differed between different parts of the same university.
OH&S authorities appear to collect some information relevant to exposure surveillance, such as licensing and possibly substance registers, but do not undertake any comprehensive exposure surveillance. These authorities are also responsible for biological monitoring, which can be considered a form of integrated exposure monitoring and may have the potential to be developed into a national or nationally representative system.
The only functioning national exposure surveillance system is the ionising radiation monitoring system run by the Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Authority (ARPANSA). This has been operating for many years and appears to be functioning effectively. The mining industry, through the Minerals Council of Australia, is in the early stages of developing a national exposure surveillance system. It currently focuses on noise but is expected to be expanded soon to cover some dusts and radiation.
New Zealand survey
The New Zealand survey was conducted through direct contact, by telephone or in person, with relevant agencies and organisations including the Department of Labour, the Environmental Risk Management Authority, various unions, the Employers and Manufacturers Association and various researchers.
Again, the main finding was that exposure surveillance is not widely carried out. The Department of Labour has previously collected exposure data from workplaces during inspectors’ visits, but these data are no longer collected and the expertise available for routinely collecting data has reduced over the past decade. As in Australia, some large multinational companies conduct exposure surveillance, but this is specific to each organisation. It also appears that companies and organisations collect little data on exposures in the workplace.
The Centre for Human Factors and Ergonomics (COHFE) has operated an industry-based exposure system for 20 years. This is not considered nationally relevant as it relies on a voluntary reporting system and only looks at one exposure of interest.
The lack of national New Zealand-based exposure surveillance systems was consistent with the findings of the international report conducted in 20052.
Workforce surveys
Two major workforce studies are being conducted in New Zealand by Massey University and the University of Otago. They have not yet been published, but provide possible models for future routine workforce surveys.
The Massey University study is funded by the Occupational Health and Safety Joint Research Portfolio managed by the Accident Compensation Corporation (ACC), Occupational Safety and Health (OSH) and the Health Research Council (HRC), which issued a request for proposals for a study of “the current and future burden of occupational ill-health in New Zealand”.
The study involves telephone surveys of current exposures and work practices with a random sample of 5,000 members of the New Zealand workforce, identified through the electoral roll. It includes not only physical and chemical exposures (for example, increasing the risk of cancer and respiratory disease), but also physical and organisational factors that may increase the risk of musculoskeletal problems, fatigue, sleep problems, gastro-intestinal disease and cardiovascular illness. This will be supplemented by more detailed exposure assessments in selected key industries, through workplace visits, more detailed questionnaires and industrial hygiene measurements.
The information will be used to develop a New Zealand job-exposure matrix (NZ JEM) based on the categories of the New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations. It is intended to repeat the survey at five-yearly intervals to provide an ongoing assessment of occupational exposures in New Zealand.
The University of Otago study is funded by the HRC. It is similar to Massey’s but collects more detailed and more qualitative information in a smaller number of workers. It involves developing methods for and assessing the feasibility of characterising work-related hazards in New Zealand, their associated health effects and the potential impact of these hazards on different worker socio-economic groups.
Summary of Findings from the Review
The main finding of the Australian and New Zealand review was that exposure surveillance is not widely carried out in these countries. The major exceptions to this appear to be among large, multinational companies in Australia and New Zealand, and perhaps some universities.
The three multinational companies that returned completed questionnaires appeared to have sophisticated exposure surveillance built into their risk-management schemes. However, the systems were purpose built and, although they were usually common within organisations, differed between organisations. Additional exposure data may have been collected by companies and organisations but it is not publicly available.
OH&S agencies in New Zealand and Australia appear to collect some information relevant to exposure surveillance, such as licensing and possibly registers of substances, but do not undertake any comprehensive exposure surveillance.
The only functioning national exposure surveillance system is the ionising radiation monitoring system run by ARPANSA, but this is based on a unique exposure. The system has been operating for many years and appears to be functioning effectively. The mining industry, through the Minerals Council of Australia, is in the early stages of developing a national exposure surveillance system; this currently focuses on noise but is expected to be expanded soon to cover some dusts and radiation.
In New Zealand, two university-based workforce surveys are likely to yield valuable exposure surveillance information. Ideally, regular surveys of this type should be an integral part of an ongoing monitoring system, and be conducted routinely by government departments rather than as “one-off” research projects by universities.
In summary, apart from two systems based on an industry sector, there is no published information on detailed exposure surveillance, either of a single exposure or a range of exposures, at a national or regional level in either Australia or New Zealand. The information that is available appears to be fragmented and under-resourced and lacks strategic coordination and direction.