No abstract available.
Environmental Monitoring*

Biomarkers ; Environmental Monitoring ; Humans

No abstract available.
Environmental Monitoring* ; Health Promotion*

DECODA is a ecological model. Functions of DECODA include: research, analysis and management of population and community. Master file of DECODA contains species variables, community data and sample variables. DECODA includes 3 modules: MDS, DECORANA, TWINSPAN. Applying DECODA in analyzing medicinal plant (MP) gardens of Yao ethnicity in TWINSPAN classifies 56 MP gardens into 6 groups based on characteristics of MP: I, II, III, IV groups include MPs that fit with high sunlight, heavy soil, medium moisture and poor humus soil. V, VI groups are in opposition to the above groups. DECORANA classifies the MP gardens into 7 groups based on characteristics of gardens: I, II, III, IV groups have a favourable conditions for growing MP and the owner of the gardens pay more attention in growing MP. V, VI groups are in opposition to the above groups.
Environmental Monitoring ; Plants, Medicinal

Environmental Monitoring ; instrumentation

Environmental Monitoring ; Humans ; Occupational Health

Environmental Monitoring ; methods ; Environmental Pollutants ; analysis ; Microchip Analytical Procedures

This study was conducted to evaluate the relationships between the environmental exposure and biological monitoring among workers exposed to metallic mercury. We interviewed each workers to get the medical history including previous hazardous occupational history we measured the respiration rate and tidal volume of each worker in order to calculate the 8-hour inhaled mercury of workers. And we wanted to evaluate the effect of exposure duration to mercury concentrations in blood and urine as biologic exposure indices of metallic mercury. The regression and correlation analysis were done to the relationships of 8-hour inhaled mercury are mercury in blood and urine. The results were as follows; 1. The subjects were 35 fluorescent lamp manufacturing workers. The mean age of subjects was 24.8 years old, and the mean work careers of workers was 1.19 years. 89% of the total was consisted man. 2. The correlation coefficients between 8-hour inhaled mercury and mercury in blood and urine were higher than that of only considered air mercury concentration. 3. The correlation coefficients of 8-hour inhaled mercury and mercury in blood and urine were above 0.9 in workers who had exposed to mercury more than 1 year. 4. The R-square value and -value of regression analysis between the 8-hour inhaled mercury and mercury inn blood and urine was also higher in workers who had exposed to mercury over 1 year than in workers who had less than 1 year working experience. The important results or this study were that relationships between the 8hr-inhaled mercury and mercury in blood and urine was very high than that with air mercury concentration only. And the results were very apparent when considering workers 1 year or more. Therefore we concluded that the work career and respiratory volume of each individuals should be considered in evaluation the results of biological monitoring of workers exposed to metallic mercury.
Environmental Exposure ; Environmental Monitoring ; Inhalation* ; Respiratory Rate ; Tidal Volume

China ; Environmental Monitoring ; legislation & jurisprudence ; Environmental Pollutants ; Organic Chemicals

OBJECTIVETo compare the results of noise hazard evaluations based on area sampling and personal sampling in a new thermal power plant and to analyze the similarities and differences between the two measurement methods.

METHODSAccording to Measurement of Physical agents in Workplace Part 8: Noise(GBZff 189.8-2007), area sampling was performed at various operating points for noise measurement, and meanwhile the workers under different types of work wore noise dosimeters for personal noise exposure measurement. The two measurement methods were used to evaluate the level of noise hazards in the enterprise according to the corresponding occupational health standards, and the evaluation results were compared.

RESULTSArea sampling was performed at 99 operating points, the mean noise level was 88.9 ± 11.1 dB (A)(range, 51.3-107.0 dB (A)), with an over-standard rate of 75.8%. Personal sampling was performed (73 person times),and the mean noise level was 79.3 ± 6.3 dB (A), with an over-standard rate of 6.6% ( 16/241 ). There was a statistically significant difference in the over-standard rate between the evaluation results of the two measurement methods ( x2=53.869, ?<0.001 ).

CONCLUSIONBecause of the characteristics of the work in new thermal power plants, the noise hazard evaluation based on area sampling cannot be used instead of personal noise exposure measurement among workers. Personal sampling should be used in the noise measurement in new thermal power plant.