Search for NIOSH Publications: NIOSHTIC-2

NIOSHTIC-2 Search Results

Terms: 20035577

1 - 1 of 1 Bibliographic entries

All record(s) shown.

Save All   |   Save Page

View Saved    |    Download

 1

In-depth survey of dust control technology for cutting concrete block and tuckpointing brick at The International Masonry Institute, Bordentown Training Center, Bordentown, New Jersey, report no. EPHB 282-13.

Authors

Echt-A; Sieber-WK; Lefkowitz-D; Meeker-J; Susi-P; Cardwell-B; Heitbrink-WA

Source

NIOSH 2007 Apr; :1-33

Link

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/surveyreports/pdfs/ECTB-282-13.pdf 

NIOSHTIC No.

20035577 

Abstract

This study evaluated the performance of four commercially-available engineering controls used in dusty construction tasks. Two controls for hand-held abrasive cutters and two controls for tuckpointing grinders were examined at a bricklayers training center. A local exhaust ventilation (LEV) control and a water spray control for hand-held abrasive cutters were evaluated during concrete-block cutting. Compared with the use of no control during block cutting, the LEV shroud and vacuum cleaner reduced both quartz and respirable dust exposures by 95 percent, while the water-spray attachment reduced quartz exposures by 90 percent and respirable dust exposures by 88 percent. Both of the control measures were significantly different from the use of no control during block cutting (p <0.05), but the exposure reductions achieved by the controls were not significantly different from each other. A local exhaust ventilation control and a water spray control for tuckpointing grinders were tested while a brick wall was tuckpointed. Reductions in respirable quartz concentrations were 98 percent with the LEV control and 84 percent with water spray control. The differences in mean quartz concentrations during tuckpointing were statistically significant between use of no control and either the water control or local exhaust control (p<0.05). There was not a statistically significant difference between the two control methods. Respirable dust concentrations while tuckpointing were reduced by 99 percent with the use of the LEV control, versus 81 percent by the water spray control. Mean levels of respirable dust measured during tuckpointing were statistically significantly different (p<0.05) between control and no control, and also between the two control methods.

Keywords

Region-2; Engineering-controls; Control-technology; Hand-tools; Power-tools; Construction-workers; Construction-industry; Construction; Ventilation; Exhaust-ventilation; Abrasive-grinding; Dust-control; Respirable-dust; Quartz-dust; Silica-dusts; Masons

CAS No.

14808-60-7

Publication Date

20070401

Document Type

Field Studies; Control Technology

Fiscal Year

2007

NTIS Accession No.

PB2009-113258

NTIS Price

A04

Identifying No.

EPHB-282-13

NIOSH Division

DART

SIC Code

1741

Source Name

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

State

NJ; OH