Publication:
Climate Warming and Occupational Heat and Hot Environment Standards in Thailand

dc.contributor.authorWantanee Phanprasiten_US
dc.contributor.authorKannikar Rittapromen_US
dc.contributor.authorSumitra Dokkemen_US
dc.contributor.authorAronrag C. Meeyaien_US
dc.contributor.authorVorakamol Boonyayothinen_US
dc.contributor.authorJouni J.K. Jaakkolaen_US
dc.contributor.authorSimo Näyhäen_US
dc.contributor.otherLondon School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicineen_US
dc.contributor.otherOulun Yliopistoen_US
dc.contributor.otherMahidol Universityen_US
dc.contributor.otherAisin Takaoka Asia Co. Ltd.en_US
dc.date.accessioned2020-11-18T08:37:01Z
dc.date.available2020-11-18T08:37:01Z
dc.date.issued2020-01-01en_US
dc.description.abstract© 2020 The Authors 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.en_US
dc.identifier.citationSafety and Health at Work. (2020)en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1016/j.shaw.2020.09.008en_US
dc.identifier.issn20937997en_US
dc.identifier.issn20937911en_US
dc.identifier.other2-s2.0-85092915471en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://repository.li.mahidol.ac.th/handle/20.500.14594/59926
dc.rightsMahidol Universityen_US
dc.rights.holderSCOPUSen_US
dc.source.urihttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85092915471&origin=inwarden_US
dc.subjectChemical Engineeringen_US
dc.subjectEngineeringen_US
dc.subjectMedicineen_US
dc.subjectSocial Sciencesen_US
dc.titleClimate Warming and Occupational Heat and Hot Environment Standards in Thailanden_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dspace.entity.typePublication
mu.datasource.scopushttps://www.scopus.com/inward/record.uri?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85092915471&origin=inwarden_US

Files

Collections