Vis enkel innførsel

dc.contributor.authorRidderseth, Hilde
dc.contributor.authorDaltveit, Dagrun Slettebø
dc.contributor.authorHollund, Bjørg Eli
dc.contributor.authorKirkeleit, Jorunn
dc.contributor.authorKromhout, Hans
dc.contributor.authorKrüger, Kirstin
dc.contributor.authorAasbø, Kari
dc.contributor.authorBråtveit, Magne
dc.date.accessioned2023-10-05T12:13:52Z
dc.date.available2023-10-05T12:13:52Z
dc.date.created2023-09-28T08:59:39Z
dc.date.issued2023
dc.identifier.issn1545-9624
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/11250/3094504
dc.description.abstractWorkers on offshore petroleum installations might be exposed to benzene, a carcinogenic agent. Recently, a full-shift benzene exposure model was developed based on personal measurements. This study aimed to validate this exposure model by using datasets not included in the model. The exposure model was validated against an internal dataset of measurements from offshore installations owned by the same company that provided data for the model, and an external dataset from installations owned by another company. We used Tobit regression to estimate GM (geometric mean) benzene exposure overall and for individual job groups. Bias, relative bias, precision, and correlation were estimated to evaluate the agreement between measured exposures and the levels predicted by the model. Overall, the model overestimated exposure when compared to the predicted exposure level to the internal dataset with a factor of 1.7, a relative bias of 73%, a precision of 0.6, a correlation coefficient of 0.72 (p = 0.019), while the Lin’s Concordance Correlation Coefficient (CCC) was 0.53. The model underestimated exposure when compared to the external dataset with a factor of about 2, with a relative bias of −45%, a precision of 1.2, a correlation coefficient of 0.31 (p = 0.544), and a Lin’s CCC of 0.25. The exposure model overestimated benzene exposure in the internal validation dataset, while the precision and the correlation between the measured and predicted exposure levels were high. Differences in measurement strategies could be one of the reasons for the discrepancy. The exposure model agreed less with the external dataset.en_US
dc.language.isoengen_US
dc.publisherTaylor & Francisen_US
dc.rightsNavngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal*
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/deed.no*
dc.titleValidation of a full-shift benzene exposure empirical model developed for work on offshore petroleum installations on the Norwegian continental shelfen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.typePeer revieweden_US
dc.description.versionpublishedVersionen_US
dc.rights.holderCopyright 2023 the authorsen_US
cristin.ispublishedtrue
cristin.fulltextoriginal
cristin.qualitycode1
dc.identifier.doi10.1080/15459624.2023.2242416
dc.identifier.cristin2179688
dc.source.journalJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygieneen_US
dc.identifier.citationJournal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene. 2023.en_US


Tilhørende fil(er)

Thumbnail

Denne innførselen finnes i følgende samling(er)

Vis enkel innførsel

Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal
Med mindre annet er angitt, så er denne innførselen lisensiert som Navngivelse 4.0 Internasjonal