Environmental Hazards of an Unrecultivated Liquid Waste Disposal Site on Soil and Groundwater

Disposal sites without adequate engineering controls pose a significant risk to the environment. In the present study, the environmental hazards of an abandoned and unrecultivated liquid waste disposal are investigated with a special focus on soil and shallow groundwater contamination. After a period of operation from 1994 to 2010, when the wastewater collection of the municipality was regulated, the disposal site was subsequently decommissioned without further action. Eight monitoring wells have been established in the disposal basins and in the surrounding area to determine the contamination of the site. Sampling took place in the summers of 2020 and 2021. The results of the analysis of the soil and water samples collected showed a high level of contamination in the area. In the borehole profile of the infiltration basin, a well-developed leachate nitrate profile was observed, with a concentration above 3000 mg/kg NO3−. The soil phosphate content was also significant, with a value of over 1900 mg/kg in the upper 40 cm layer. Extremely high concentrations of ammonium (>45 mg/L) and organic matter (>90 mg/L) were detected in the groundwater of the basins, indicating that contaminated soil remains a major source of pollutants more than 10 years after closure. For all micro- and macroelements present in detectable concentrations, a significant increase was observed in the infiltration basin. Our results have revealed that the surroundings are also heavily contaminated. NO3− concentrations above the contamination limit were measured outside the basins. Recultivation of liquid waste disposal sites of similar characteristics is therefore strongly recommended.

Rapid evidence review to inform safe return to campus in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted predominantly through the air in crowded and unventilated indoor spaces, especially among unvaccinated people. Universities and colleges are potential settings for its spread. Methods: An interdisciplinary team from public health, virology, and biology used narrative methods to summarise and synthesise evidence on key control measures, taking account of mode of transmission. Results: Evidence from a wide range of primary studies supports six measures. Vaccinate (aim for > 90% coverage and make it easy to get a jab). Require masks indoors, especially in crowded settings. If everyone wears well-fitting cloth masks, source control will be high, but for maximum self-protection, respirator masks should be worn. Masks should not be removed for speaking or singing. Space people out by physical distancing (but there is no “safe” distance because transmission risk varies with factors such as ventilation, activity levels and crowding), reducing class size (including offering blended learning), and cohorting (students remain in small groups with no cross-mixing). Clean indoor air using engineering controls—ventilation (while monitoring CO2 levels), inbuilt filtration systems, or portable air cleaners fitted with high efficiency particulate air [HEPA] filters). Test asymptomatic staff and students using lateral flow tests, with tracing and isolating infectious cases when incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is high. Support clinically vulnerable people to work remotely. There is no direct evidence to support hand sanitising, fomite controls or temperature-taking. There was no evidence that freestanding plastic screens, face visors and electronic air-cleaning systems are effective. Conclusions: The above evidence-based measures should be combined into a multi-faceted strategy to maximise both student safety and the continuation of in-person and online education provision. Those seeking to provide a safe working and learning environment should collect data (e.g. CO2 levels, room occupancy) to inform their efforts.

Design and validation of a tool to assess the safety principles of working with nanomaterials in nanotechnology laboratories

Introduction: The unique properties of nanomaterials, in addition to their applications in science and technology, can be a threat to human health and the environment. Exposure to these materials may occur in workplaces or research laboratories. It can be said that about half of people with occupational exposure to nanomaterials work in academic environments and laboratories. So, the present study was conducted to design and validate a tool to investigate the principles of working safely with nanomaterials in research laboratories. Materials & Methods: The tool was designed using reports, instructions and articles related to " Methods of working safely with nanomaterials". The validity of the tool was assessed using Lawshe method by calculating CVI and CVR. The reliability of the instrument was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha coefficient and kappa coefficient. Results: The tool was designed in 5 sections: "General Information", "Transportation and Storage of Nanomaterials", "Engineering Controls", "Administrative Controls" and "Personal Protection Equipment". After validation, 5 items did not get the necessary points to stay in the tool and were removed. The Cronbach's alpha value for each section of the tool was more than 0.80, indicating that the was "appropriate". Conclusion: According to the results, it seems that the tool studied in this study is compatible for the designed purpose and is ready to be used as a questionnaire or checklist.

HVAC system requirements for protection against epidemics similar to Covid-19

Tuberculosis and in some cases, flu, colds and other airborne diseases. Since research is one of the biggest concerns of causing influenza pandemics, most research surrounding aerosol contamination revolves around environmental influences on the influenza virus. Many literatures suggest that influenza is transmitted primarily through close contact, such as exposure to large respiratory droplets, direct mouth-to-mouth contact and short-term exposure to infectious aerosols. Diffusion can be accelerated or controlled by heating, ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) systems. Researches continue that advances state of knowledge in the specific techniques that control airborne infectious disease transmission through HVAC systems, including ventilation rates, airflow regimes, filtration, and ultraviolet germicidal irradiation (UVGI). In this paper three methods of transmission of Airborne Infectious Diseases are discussed, namely through direct contact, large droplet contact, inhalation of droplet core. An extensive literature review of many papers was conducted infectious diseases spread in several different ways and the transmission of infectious viruses. This review targets direct and indirect contact as well as infectious viruses known to be transmitted from the air. And he focused on preventive ventilation systems for these targets. This paper will give idea to support further research on engineering controls to reduce infectious disease transmission.

A Strategy for Field Evaluations of Exposures and Respiratory Health of Workers at Small- to Medium-Sized Coffee Facilities

Coffee production is a global industry with roasteries throughout the world. Workers in this industry are exposed to complex mixtures of gases, dusts, and vapors including carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, coffee dust, allergens, alpha-diketones, and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Adverse respiratory health outcomes such as respiratory symptoms, reduced pulmonary function, asthma, and obliterative bronchiolitis can occur among exposed workers. In response to health hazard evaluations requests received from 17 small- to medium-sized coffee facilities across the United States, the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health conducted investigations during 2016–2017 to understand the burden of respiratory abnormalities, exposure characteristics, relationships between exposures and respiratory effects, and opportunities for exposure mitigation. Full-shift, task-based, and instantaneous personal and area air samples for diacetyl, 2,3-pentanedione and other VOCs were collected, and engineering controls were evaluated. Medical evaluations included questionnaire, spirometry, impulse oscillometry, and fractional exhaled nitric oxide. Exposure and health assessments were conducted using standardized tools and approaches, which enabled pooling data for aggregate analysis. The pooled data provided a larger population to better address the requestors' concern of the effect of exposure to alpha-diketones on the respiratory heath of coffee workers. This paper describes the rationale for the exposure and health assessment strategy, the approach used to achieve the study objectives, and its advantages and limitations.

Masonry Dust Risk Control Practices and the Barriers to the Adoption of Engineering Controls in Reducing Risk due to Dust Exposure in Masonry Work

The construction industry is known to be among the most vulnerable industries in terms of occupational safety and health. One of the riskiest activities in construction involves masonry, which reports several cases involving occupational health diseases due to the exposure to silica dust. Thus, this study aims to investigate the perception toward health risks due to exposure to dust in masonry work. A survey research method was adopted for this study, which involved the participation of 25 active construction contractors in Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. The findings reveal that respiratory problems and health diseases are the most perceived risks associated to dust exposure in masonry work. There are various barriers to the adoption of engineering control in masonry work such as high costs, lack of awareness of dust hazards, and workers’ attitudes. The current practical intervention methods used by contractor firms are respiratory protection, wet method, and sweeping compound. This study provides information on the current masonry work environment and the barriers of the adoption of engineering control technologies. Additionally, this study suggests that the key players in the construction industry should take an active part to increase the implementation of engineering controls in a construction project, and not rely solely on the use of PPE.

Rapid evidence review to inform safe return to campus in the context of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

Background: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is transmitted predominantly through the air in crowded and unventilated indoor spaces among unvaccinated people. Universities and colleges are potential settings for its spread. Methods: An interdisciplinary team from public health, virology, and biology used narrative methods to summarise and synthesise evidence on key control measures, taking account of mode of transmission. Results: Evidence from a wide range of primary studies supports six measures. Vaccinate (aim for > 90% coverage and make it easy to get a jab). Require masks indoors, especially in crowded settings. If everyone wears well-fitting cloth masks, source control will be high, but for maximum self-protection, respirator masks should be worn. Masks should not be removed for speaking or singing. Space people out by physical distancing (but there is no “safe” distance because transmission risk varies with factors such as ventilation, activity levels and crowding), reducing class size (including offering blended learning), and cohorting (students remain in small groups with no cross-mixing). Clean indoor air using engineering controls—ventilation (while monitoring CO2 levels), inbuilt filtration systems, or portable air cleaners fitted with high efficiency particulate air [HEPA] filters). Test asymptomatic staff and students using lateral flow tests, with tracing and isolating infectious cases when incidence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is high. Support clinically vulnerable people to work remotely. There is no direct evidence to support hand sanitising, fomite controls or temperature-taking. There is evidence that freestanding plastic screens, face visors and electronic air-cleaning systems are ineffective. Conclusions: The above six evidence-based measures should be combined into a multi-faceted strategy to maximise both student safety and the continuation of in-person and online education provision. Staff and students seeking to negotiate a safe working and learning environment should collect data (e.g. CO2 levels, room occupancy) to inform conversations.

Infection Control in the Era of COVID-19: A Narrative Review

COVID-19 quickly became a pandemic causing millions of infections and mortalities. It required real-time adjustments to healthcare systems and infection prevention and control (IPC) measures to limit the spread and protect healthcare providers and hospitalized patients. IPC guidelines were adopted and developed based on experience gained during the MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV outbreaks. The aim of this narrative review is to summarize current evidence on IPC in healthcare settings and patients with COVID-19 to prevent nosocomial infections during the actual pandemic. A search was run on PubMed using the terms (‘COVID-19’ [Mesh]) AND (‘Infection Control’ [Mesh]) between 2019 and 2021. We identified 86 studies that were in accordance with our aim and summarized them under certain themes as they related to COVID-19 infection control measures. All the guidelines recommend early diagnosis and rapid isolation of COVID-19 patients. The necessary precautions should be taken comprising the whole process, starting with an infectious disease plan, administrative and engineering controls, triage, and PPE training. Guidelines should target modes of transmission, droplet, aerosol, and oral–fecal, while recommending control precautions. Healthcare facilities must promptly implement a multidisciplinary defense system to combat the outbreak.