This study was to determine occupational exposures to formaldehyde and to compare concentrations of formaldehyde obtained by active and passive sampling methods. In one pathology and one histology laboratories, exposure measurements were collected with sets of active air samplers (Supelco LpDNPH tubes) and passive badges (ChemDisk Aldehyde Monitor 571). Sixty-six sample pairs (49 personal and 17 area) were collected and analyzed by NIOSH NMAM 2016 for active samples and OSHA Method 1007 (using the manufacturer's updated uptake rate) for passive samples. All active and passive 8-hour time-weighted average (TWA) measurements showed compliance with the OSHA permissible exposure limit (PEL-0.75 ppm) except for one passive measurement, whereas 78% for the active and 88% for the passive samples exceeded the NIOSH recommended exposure limit (REL-0.016 ppm). Overall, 73% of the passive samples showed higher concentrations than the active samples and a statistical test indicated disagreement between two methods for all data and for data without outliers. The OSHA Method cautions that passive samplers should not be used for sampling situations involving formalin solutions because of low concentration estimates in the presence of reaction products of formaldehyde and methanol (a formalin additive). However, this situation was not observed, perhaps because the formalin solutions used in these laboratories included much less methanol (3%) than those tested in the OSHA Method (up to 15%). The passive samplers in general overestimated concentrations compared to the active method, which is prudent for demonstrating compliance with an occupational exposure limit, but occasional large differences may be a result of collecting aerosolized droplets or splashes on the face of the samplers. In the situations examined in this study the passive sampler generally produces higher results than the active sampler so that a body of results from passive samplers demonstrating compliance with the OSHA PEL would be a valid conclusion. However, individual passive samples can show lower results than a paired active sampler so that a single result should be treated with caution.

This study introduces two semi-quantitative methods, Structured Subjective Assessment (SSA) and Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Essentials, in conjunction with 2-dimensional Monte Carlo simulations for determining prior probabilities. Prior distribution using expert judgment was included for comparison. Practical applications of the proposed methods were demonstrated using personal exposure measurements of isoamyl acetate in an electronics manufacturing facility and of isopropanol in a printing shop. Applicability of these methods in real workplaces was discussed based on the advantages and disadvantages of each method. Although these methods could not be completely independent of expert judgments, this study demonstrated a methodological improvement in the estimation of the prior distribution for the Bayesian decision analysis tool. The proposed methods provide a logical basis for the decision process by considering determinants of worker exposure. [Supplementary materials are available for this article. Go to the publisher's online edition of Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene for the following free supplementary resource: Coding of the MC Simulation (SSA Method)]