Overview of Legal Measures for Managing Workplace COVID-19 Infection Risk in Several Asia-Pacific Countries

Background@#Despite the lack of official COVID-19 statistics, various workplaces and occupations have been at the center of COVID-19 outbreaks. We aimed to compare legal measures and governance established for managing COVID-19 infection risks at workplaces in nine Asia and Pacific countries and to recommend key administrative measures. @*Methods@#We collected information on legal measures and governance from both general citizens and workers regarding infection risks such as COVID-19 from industrial hygiene professionals in nine countries (Indonesia, India, Japan, Malaysia, New Zealand, Republic of the Philippines, Republic of Korea, Taiwan, and Thailand) using a structured questionnaire. @*Results@#A governmental body overseeing public health and welfare was in charge of containing the spread and occurrence of infectious diseases under an infectious disease control and prevention act or another special act, although the name of the pertinent organizations and legislation vary among countries. Unlike in the case of other traditional hazards, there have been no specific articles or clauses describing the means of mitigating virus risk in the workplace that are legally required of employers, making it difficult to define the responsibilities of the employer. Each country maintains own legal systems regarding access to the duration, administration, and financing of paid sick leave. Many workers may not have access to paid sick leave even if it is legally guaranteed. @*Conclusion@#Specific legal measures to manage infectious disease risks, such as providing proper personal protective equipment, education, engineering control measures, and paid sick leave are recommended to be stipulated in Industrial safety and health-related acts.

Climate Warming and Occupational Heat and Hot Environment Standards in Thailand

Background@#During the period 2001 to 2016, the maximum temperatures in Thailand rose from 38–41oC to 42–44oC. The current occupational heat exposure standard of Thailand issued in 2006 is based on wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) defined for three workload levels without a work–rest regimen. This study examined whether the present standard still protects most workers. @*Methods@#The sample comprised 168 heat acclimatized workers (90 in construction sites, 78 in foundries). Heart rate and auditory canal temperature were recorded continuously for 2 hours. Workplace WBGT, relative humidity, and wind velocity were monitored, and the participants' workloads were estimated. Heat-related symptoms and signs were collected by a questionnaire. @*Results@#Only 55% of the participants worked in workplaces complying with the heat standard. Of them, 79% had auditory canal temperature ≤ 38.5oC, compared with only 58% in noncompliant workplaces. 18% and 43% of the workers in compliant and noncompliant workplaces, respectively, had symptoms from heat stress, the trend being similar across all workload levels. An increase of one degree (C) in WBGT was associated with a 1.85-fold increase (95% confidence interval: 1.44–2.48) in odds for having symptoms. @*Conclusion@#Compliance with the current occupational heat standard protects 4/5 of the workers, whereas noncompliance reduces this proportion to one half. The reasons for noncompliance include the gaps and ambiguities in the law. The law should specify work/rest schedules; outdoor work should be identified as an occupational heat hazard; and the staff should include occupational personnel to manage heat stress in establishments involving heat exposure.

Climate Warming and Occupational Heat and Hot Environment Standards in Thailand

Background@#During the period 2001 to 2016, the maximum temperatures in Thailand rose from 38–41oC to 42–44oC. The current occupational heat exposure standard of Thailand issued in 2006 is based on wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) defined for three workload levels without a work–rest regimen. This study examined whether the present standard still protects most workers. @*Methods@#The sample comprised 168 heat acclimatized workers (90 in construction sites, 78 in foundries). Heart rate and auditory canal temperature were recorded continuously for 2 hours. Workplace WBGT, relative humidity, and wind velocity were monitored, and the participants' workloads were estimated. Heat-related symptoms and signs were collected by a questionnaire. @*Results@#Only 55% of the participants worked in workplaces complying with the heat standard. Of them, 79% had auditory canal temperature ≤ 38.5oC, compared with only 58% in noncompliant workplaces. 18% and 43% of the workers in compliant and noncompliant workplaces, respectively, had symptoms from heat stress, the trend being similar across all workload levels. An increase of one degree (C) in WBGT was associated with a 1.85-fold increase (95% confidence interval: 1.44–2.48) in odds for having symptoms. @*Conclusion@#Compliance with the current occupational heat standard protects 4/5 of the workers, whereas noncompliance reduces this proportion to one half. The reasons for noncompliance include the gaps and ambiguities in the law. The law should specify work/rest schedules; outdoor work should be identified as an occupational heat hazard; and the staff should include occupational personnel to manage heat stress in establishments involving heat exposure.

Asbestos Exposure among Mitering Workers

The objectives are to compare the airborne asbestos concentrations resulted from mitering of abestos cement roof sheets by a high-speed motor and a hand saw, and to monitor whether other workers near the test sites are vulnerable to the fibers exceeding the occupational exposure limit. Four test cases were carried out and altogether 7 personal and 4 area air samples were collected. The NIOSH method 7400 was employed for the air samplings and analysis. Using the phase contrast microscopy, fiber counting was conducted under Rule A. The study showed that the fiber concentration medians for personal air samples gathered from the two tools were 4.11 fibers/cc (ranged: 1.33-12.41 fibers/cc) and 0.13 fibers/cc (ranged: 0.01-5.00 fibers/cc) respectively. The median for the area samples was 0.59 fibers/cc (ranged: 0.14-3.32 fibers/cc). Comparing each study case, the concentration level caused by the high-speed motor saw was more than twice that of the hand saw. According to the area samples, the workers nearby the test site are at risk from high exposure to asbestos.

Asbestos Exposure Monitoring in Worker Demolished Asbestos Contained Material Building and the Concentration in Environment

This research come from the study of air sampling analysis and exposure of asbestos from the demolition of Building which contained asbestos material (such as ceiling and roof) by using both of personal and environment air samples. The result of fiber concentration of personal air sample attached to the ones who work with asbestos material (eg. remove ceiling and roof) and the environment air sample inside the building were 0.1-0.4 fiber/mL. which were higher or close to that of ACGIH standard, 0.1 fiber/mL., that showed the potential of risk to impair health of workers. Workers should change their methods to lower the blow out of asbestos and also wear the appropriate PPE. However, the asbestos fiber content in air sample of the atmosphere outside the building was found to be lower than that of ACGIH standard. From this result, it show that Thailand should do more research about the exposure of asbestos from demolition of old building to set proper control measures for safety of the workers.