Replies

1. 
   ian | Dec 13, 2002 04:22pm | #1

   Coarse dust tends to stick in your throat and you cough it up.  Fine dust tends to settle in your lungs and can cause all sorts of health problems, including cancer.  In the area of pollution from cars and trucks, it's the sub 10 micron stuff that's a worry.  Imagine it is the same with wood dust, as well some wood dusts are real nasty.

2. 
   PlaneWood | Dec 13, 2002 11:53pm | #2

   But, has a scientific study ever been done to find the size range of dust particles in a wood working shop?? 

   We all talk about 1 micron being better, but is it just salesman's hype?  Are there specific studies by the scientific community to back it up ???

   How does moisture content relate to partical size?  Relative humidity? Wood species? Type of tools being used?  Sandpaper grit size? etc, etc.

   Anyone ever got silicosis from sandpaper residue?

   Surely a masters or doctors thesis has been done on this somewhere?

   PlaneWood by Mike_in_Katy
   PlaneWood

1. 
   ian | Dec 14, 2002 02:25am | #3

   Mike

   I'm not a medical researcher, but I believe the answer to your question is yes.  10 micron is the generally accepted cut off between large (harmless ?) and small (harmful) dust particles, though I've seen work (related to emmisions from diesel engines) suggesting 5 micron maybe a second cut-off.  Here's a few references - I'm convinced.

   American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 147, Issue 6 537-547, Copyright © 1998 by Oxford University PressPersonal sampling of particles in adults: relation among personal, indoor, and outdoor air concentrationsNA Janssen, G Hoek, B Brunekreef, H Harssema, I Mensink and A Zuidhof Department of Environmental Sciences, Environmental and Occupational Health, University of Wageningen, The Netherlands.Abstract:  To investigate the validity of outdoor particulate matter with a 50% cutoff diameter of 10-microm (PM10) concentrations as a measure of exposure in time series studies, the association between personal and outdoor concentrations, within subjects, over time was investigated. Repeated measurements of personal, indoor, and outdoor PM10 were conducted among 37 nonsmoking, 50- to 70-year-old adults, living in Amsterdam, Netherlands, 1994. Regression analyses were conducted for each subject separately, and the distribution of the individual regression and correlation coefficients was investigated. Furthermore, the extent to which differences among personal, indoor, and outdoor concentrations could be explained was studied. The median Pearson's R between personal and outdoor concentrations was 0.50. Excluding days with exposure to environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) improved the correlation to a median R of 0.71. The estimated cross-sectional correlations were lower, 0.34 and 0.50, respectively. Outdoor concentrations (mean, 42 microg/m3) exceeded indoor concentrations (mean, 35 microg/m3) but underestimated personal exposures (mean, 62 microg/m3). The major part of the difference between personal and outdoor concentrations could be attributed to exposure to ETS, living along a busy road, and time spent in a vehicle. The results show a reasonably high correlation between personal and outdoor PM10 within individuals, providing support for the use of ambient PM10 concentrations as a measure of exposure in epidemiologic studies linking the day-to-day variation in particulate matter air pollution to the day-to-day variation in health endpoints such as mortality, hospital admissions, respiratory symptoms, and lung function.

   American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 123, Issue 2 235-249, Copyright © 1986 by Oxford University Press Associations between several sites of cancer and nine organic dusts: results from an hypothesis-generating case-control study in Montreal, 1979-1983J Siemiatycki, L Richardson, M Gerin, M Goldberg, R Dewar, M Desy, S Campbell and S Wacholder Abstract:  A multi-cancer site, multi-factor case-control study was undertaken to generate hypotheses about possible occupational carcinogens. Probing interviews were carried out with over 2,000 subjects. All incident cases of 19 sites of cancer in males aged 35-70 and resident in Montreal were eligible. The interview was designed to obtain detailed lifetime job histories, and information on potential confounders. Each job history was reviewed by a team of chemists who translated it into a history of occupational exposures. These occupational exposures were then analyzed as potential risk factors in relation to the sites of cancer included. For each site of cancer analyzed as a case series, controls were selected from among the other cancer sites in the study. This report concerns the associations between sites of cancer for which there were over 100 cases processed (stomach; colorectal, also analyzed by subsites; lung; prostate; bladder; kidney; non-Hodgkin's lymphoma) and nine organic dusts (wood; paper; grain; flour; fabrics; cotton; wool; synthetics; fur). All site-exposure combinations were investigated. The ones that provided the most interesting leads were lung-wood dust (odds ratio (OR) = 1.5), stomach-wood dust (OR = 1.5), colorectal-synthetic fiber (OR = 1.5), bladder-synthetic fiber (OR = 1.8), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma-cotton dust (OR = 1.9), colon-grain dust (OR = 2.6), prostate-grain dust (OR = 2.2), and prostate-paper dust (OR = 2.0). Only the associations with wood dust, synthetic fibers and cotton dust showed some evidence of "dose-response" with duration of exposure. Because it is such a common exposure and appears to increase lung and stomach cancer risks, wood dust may be responsible for a great deal of occupational cancer.

   American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 124, Issue 4 569-577, Copyright © 1986 by Oxford University PressWood-related occupations, wood dust exposure, and sinonasal cancerRB Hayes, M Gerin, JW Raatgever and A de Bruyn Abstract:  A case-control study was conducted to examine the relations between type of woodworking and the extent of wood dust exposure to the risks for specific histologic types of sinonasal cancer. In cooperation with the major treatment centers in the Netherlands, 116 male patients newly diagnosed between 1978 and 1981 with primary malignancies of epithelial origin of this site were identified for study. Living controls were selected from the municipal registries, and deceased controls were selected from the national death registry. Interviews were completed for 91 (78%) cases and 195 (75%) controls. Job histories were coded by industry and occupation. An index of exposure was developed to classify the extent of occupational exposure to wood dust. When necessary, adjustment was made for age and usual cigarette use. The risk for nasal adenocarcinoma was elevated by industry for the wood and paper industry (odds ratio (OR) = 11.9) and by occupation for those employed in furniture and cabinet making (OR = 139.8), in factory joinery and carpentry work (OR = 16.3), and in association with high-level wood dust exposure (OR = 26.3). Other types of nasal cancer were not found to be associated with wood-related industries or occupations. A moderate excess in risk for squamous cell cancer (OR = 2.5) was associated with low-level wood dust exposure; however, no dose-response relation was evident. The association between wood dust and adenocarcinoma was strongest for those employed in wood dust-related occupations between 1930 and 1941. The risk of adenocarcinoma did not appear to decrease for at least 15 years after termination of exposure to wood dust. No cases of nasal denocarcinoma were observed in men whose first exposure to wood dust occurred after 1941.

   American Journal of Epidemiology, Vol 133, Issue 6 560-564, Copyright © 1991 by Oxford University PressWood dust exposure and squamous cell cancers of the upper respiratory tractTL Vaughan and S DavisFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Program in Epidemiology, Seattle, WA 98104. Abstract: While it is well-accepted that exposure to hardwood dust increases the risk of sinonasal adenocarcinoma, it is still not clear to what extent wood dust exposure increases the risk of sinonasal squamous cell carcinoma or whether such exposure is also associated with adjacent upper respiratory sites. These questions were addressed using data from two population-based case-control studies in Washington State in 1979- 1987. After control for major risk factors, employment in wood-related occupations was most strongly associated with nasal cancer, especially when analysis was restricted to long-term employment 15 or more years before diagnosis (odds ratio = 7.3; 95% confidence interval 1.4-34.2). Although the overall risk for the nasopharynx was only slightly elevated, similar analysis restrictions increased the odds ratio to 4.2 (95% confidence interval 0.4-26.6). There was little indication of increased risk for the oropharynx or larynx. Although based on small numbers, these findings suggest that exposure to softwood dust increases the risk of both sinonasal and nasopharyngeal squamous cell cancers.

    

3. 
   Splintie | Dec 14, 2002 09:00am | #4

   Fred,

   Some studies were done in your part of the world--High Wycombe, to be specific--with chairmakers working with many species of woods, a good population bec it was stable over time and specific job. They found that, like asbestos, the fine dust affected the health of the families of the workers as well.

   This study i have in hand is titled "Adenocarcinomo of the Ethmoids in Furniture Workers" by Esme H. Hadfield and Ronald G. Macbeth. Here's an excerpt:

   "We have found that the adenocarcinoma occurs only among those men who are wolrking, or have at some time worked, in conditions exposing them to the is fine hard-wood dust. Workers in the sawmill jobs who are exposed to coarse dusts are not affected, nor are those who have worked exclusively in the upholstering and varnishing departments.

   We have found with interest that, as is the case with bronchial carcinoma and smoking, there may be a latent period between exposure to the irritant and incidence of the disease."

   Smoking does not seem to be an adjuvant factor in this study, though snuff use may be. Treatment:

   "Full radiotherapy and ruthless surgery are both needed. If there is any question about sacrificing the eye, there should be no doubt; it must be removed."

   Convinced?

1. 
   FGP | Dec 14, 2002 02:47pm | #5

   Splintie,

   Thanks for that definitive reference. I guess the survey was made on the workers at Ercol Furniture Ltd. Clearly the matter is of importance.

   At present I have no extraction and  depend on a simple face mask. I now realise that this cannot go on. In the UK dust collection equipment you either go for big volume (this is usually at the risk of filtering out only the big particle sized stuff) or the vacuum cleaner type which generates a big pressure difference (but v. small volume) but always filters out down to 1-2 micron.

   I like the idea of a big filter bag in the workshop giving  four or five complete air changes per hour but if the dangerous particles are merely being re circulated then what's the point?

   Ideally of course I would like a filter bag type (big volume collection) but which also filters down to 1 micron. Here's the difficulty - these just happen to be the most expensive machines?

   I could just extract 'to outside' - that sounds very simple - but so far I haven't found a supplier of the fan and motor unit. Thanks again for your response.

   Fred in Kington, UK.  

1. 
   UncleDunc | Dec 14, 2002 04:51pm | #6

   >> I could just extract 'to outside' - that sounds very simple ...

   Two issues with that. You may need a filter bag even if you blow the dust outside, to prevent the lighter weight chips and dust from blowing about the neighborhod. And if your shop is heated, blowing all that warm air out with the dust could get expensive.

2. 
   Splintie | Dec 15, 2002 12:48am | #7

   At present I have no extraction and  depend on a simple face mask. I now realise that this cannot go on.

   I checked the reference again and it appears the study was done on more than one factory, and one workers who had retired as well. It didn't name specific factories. Similar reports have since come from all over Europe, notably in Lipkörning, Sweden, a furniture-making area, and also Australia, the US, and Canada.

   In my experience, a well-fitting dust mask is a the very most important part of my dust control gear, not the DC. Example: i was simply gluing handles onto trays yesterday using no machinery; without my mask on, i had grime in my nasal passages when i finished five hours later just from moving around the shop. However, i can drum sand or belt sand all day long with perfectly clear sinuses if i'm religious about strapping the mask on. And i don't even mean the dual-canister types, but just a decent one costing a couple bucks like this one by 3M company which comes in several sizes and has more comfortalbe elastic bands instead of rubber ones.

   Here, you can get a fairly inexpensive DC and buy better bags to put on it, but that can end up costing another $50/bag. If money is tight, i would still opt for a lesser collector and better face masks. Don't know what to say about it if you have a beard...seems like the only way to protect yourself then is with the portable, positive air-flow masks...more hundreds of dollars, however.    

4. 
   eddiefromAustralia | Dec 15, 2002 01:19am | #8

   Hi Fred,

   Just a few points, one new, three reinforcing the earlier comments.

   Micron rating of filter cartridges is an indication only.  Filter bags are designed to build up and retain a cake of dust on the inside of the bag.  It is this dust cake that then filters out the dust from the airstream.  So the micron rating of a bag is an indication of how well it will perform, not an absolute guarantee.  As well, filter media degrades over time, reducing the effectiveness of the filter.

   Re: dust size, 10 micron or finer is the problem dust as it bypasses the body's defence mechanisms and lodges in the aeoli(?) - smallest part of the lung.

   Re:  dust masks, they are considered a last line of defence - see attached articles: dealing with risks in cabinetmaking http://www.whs.qld.gov.au/brochures/bro040.pdf

   http://www.whs.qld.gov.au/conference/workshop/manufacturing/manufhazsubans.pdf see part B

   Re: studies on dust vs health effects, here's one on Australian workers - a bit long winded and a big file but it's all there.   (edit: as well as the summary, the graphs on p 161-163 are telling - what health problems do woodworkers suffer cf: the general population)

   http://setis2.library.usyd.edu.au/~thesis/adt-NU/uploads/approved/adt-NU1999.0018/public/whole.pdf

   Cheers, eddie

   
   

   ---

   Edited 12/14/2002 5:30:28 PM ET by eddie (aust)

5. 
   AngeloD3 | Dec 15, 2002 03:07am | #9

   Fredpage1,

   let me give you an opinion based on a different technological field. In 1960 I worked on disk storage drives for computers that could not operate in an environment with particles larger than 6 microns. At that time Los Angeles air would cause these products to crash and destroy from the air quality. A Ford air filter at that time filtered out all particles larger than 6 microns. So guess what we used to protect the product! I was operating my shop without any dust collection other than a shop vac. I have upgraded to a Delta dust collector and was pleasantly surprised with the improvement. I then took the advice of a friend and tool supplier and added a Jet air cleaner that runs all the time that I am in the shop and for 2 hours after I leave (by using the timer). The Jet cleans the air down to 1 micron. the filter needs to be cleaned every 2-3 days since miter saws and the top of table saws spew dust everywhere. My finished product requires little to no extra rubbing out or polishing.

   There is no doubt that common sense should prevail and you should breath air of the same quality as a car engine or better.

   Benny