Ann. occup. Hyg., Vol. 43, No. 4, pp.

247±255, 1999
# 1999 British Occupational Hygiene Society
Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved
Printed in Great Britain.
PII: S0003-4878(99)00028-9 0003±4878/99/$20.00 + 0.00

Determinants of Exposure to Inhalable Particulate,

Wood Dust, Resin Acids, and Monoterpenes in a
Lumber Mill Environment
KAY TESCHKE,*} PAUL A. DEMERS,$ HUGH W. DAVIES,$
SUSAN M. KENNEDY,$ STEPHEN A. MARION* and VICTOR LEUNG$
*Department of Health Care and Epidemiology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC,
V6T 1Z3, Canada; $Occupational Hygiene Program, University of British Columbia, Vancouver,
BC, V6T 1Z3, Canada

In a lumber mill in the northern inland region of British Columbia, Canada, we measured
inhalable particulate, resin acid, and monoterpene exposures, and estimated wood dust
exposures. Potential determinants of exposure were documented concurrently, including
weather conditions, tree species, wood conditions, jobs, tasks, equipment used, and certain
control measures. Over 220 personal samples were taken for each contaminant. Geometric
mean concentrations were 0.98 mg/m3 for inhalable particulate, 0.49 mg/m3 for estimated wood
dust, 8.04 mg/m3 for total resin acids, and 1.11 mg/m3 for total monoterpenes. Multiple
regression models for all contaminants indicated that spruce and pine produced higher
exposures than alpine ®r or mixed tree species, cleaning up sawdust increased exposures, and
personnel enclosure was an e€ective means of reducing exposures. Sawing wood in the primary
breakdown areas of the mill was the main contributor to monoterpene exposures, so exposures
were highest for the barker operator, the head rig operator, the canter operator, the board
edgers, and a roving utility worker in the sawmill, and lowest in the planer mills (after kiln
drying of the lumber) and yard. Cleaning up sawdust, planing kiln-dried lumber, and driving
mobile equipment in the yard substantially increased exposures to both inhalable particulate
and estimated wood dust. Jobs at the front end of the sawmill where primary breakdown of the
logs takes place had lower exposures. Resin acid exposures followed a similar pattern, except
that yard driving jobs did not increase exposures. # 1999 British Occupational Hygiene
Society Published by Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: wood dust; occupational exposure; cross-sectional studies; epidemiology

INTRODUCTION have di€erent health e€ects, there is also interest in

In recent years, health and safety personnel in the
primary manufacturing sectors of the forest industry
have begun to focus attention on wood dust ex-
posures, largely due to the designation of wood dust
as a known human carcinogen by the International
Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC, 1995). This
has led to concern about other respiratory outcomes
of wood dust exposure, including asthma, air¯ow
obstruction, and mucous membrane symptoms
(Demers et al., 1997). Because it is well established
that exposure to dust from di€erent tree species can
Received 18 September 1998; in ®nal form 3 February
1999.
}Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Tel.: +1-604-8222041; Fax: +1-604-8224994.
247
investigating the natural components and contami-
nants of woods as a means of distinguishing their
toxic potentials.
In the summer of 1996, we conducted a cross-sec-
tional study of the association between wood-related
exposures and non-malignant respiratory outcomes
in a lumber mill in the northern inland region of
British Columbia, Canada. This mill processed
spruce (Picea englemanii, Picea glauca, and a hybrid
of the two), pine (Pinus contorta), and alpine ®r
(Abies lasiocarpa, called `balsam' colloquially). The
study included measurements of personal airborne
exposures to inhalable particulate, resin acids, and
monoterpenes. In addition, we collected information
about weather conditions, tree species, wood con-
dition, lumber mill equipment, jobs, tasks, venti-
248 K. Teschke et al.
lation and enclosures to allow us to identify factors
which contributed to increasing exposure levels, as
well as factors which e€ectively reduced exposures.
These data were used to develop an exposure model
which would allow estimation of exposures for epi-
demiological analyses. The model could also be used
to guide the location and design of control
measures. The results of the exposure measurements
and the data analysis to model determinants of ex-
posure are presented here. More descriptive details
on the dust, monoterpene, and resin acid measure-
ments are reported elsewhere (Demers et al., 1998).
METHODS
Sampling design
Personal air samples were collected over a one-
month period in the season expected to produce the
highest exposure levels and respiratory symptoms,
i.e., the dry period of the summer. Attempts were
made to sample on at least 4 occasions all jobs in
the production areas (a sawmill and 2 planer mills),
as well as the wood kiln, yard, and carpentry shop
(other maintenance areas were excluded). Jobs
expected to have high and/or variable exposures
were sampled more frequently. Individual workers
within each job were randomly selected for two
measurements each on randomly selected days.
Processing of alpine ®r in the sawmill was done on
di€erent days than processing of spruce and pine.
Because employee complaints indicated that there
may have been di€erences in exposures and/or res-
piratory symptoms according to the type of wood,
air sampling in the sawmill was strati®ed according
to the species being processed. Most air sampling
was conducted during the day shift to be concurrent
with lung function testing. Because clean-up jobs
were performed only on graveyard shifts, they were
sampled during that shift.
Inhalable particulate
Inhalable particulate was collected on 0.45 mm
pore size, 25 mm diameter Te¯on ®lters (Costar,
USA) mounted in 7-hole samplers (JS Holdings,
UK) attached to the employee's lapel as close as
possible to the breathing zone. Air was drawn
through the ®lters for a full shift (7±8 h) at a ¯ow
rate of 2.0 l/min, calibrated using an automated
soap-®lm ¯ow meter (Gilibrator, USA) at the work
site, before and after sampling. Filters were pre- and
post-weighed (triplicate weighings) on a microba-
lance (Sartorius M3P-000-V001, Germany). Prior to
pre-weighing, ®lters were equilibrated to a stable
temperature (2020.58C) and relative humidity (502
5%) for 48 h. Prior to post-weighing, ®lters were
dessicated for 3 days, then equilibrated to a stable
temperature (2020.58C) and relative humidity (502
5%) for 48 h. Two ®eld blanks were analyzed for
every 10 samples to allow correction for humidity or
other background e€ects on the ®lters. The mass
detection limit was calculated as 3 times the stan-
dard deviation (SD) of 24 lab ®lter blanks, and was
0.013 mg.
Resin acids
Abietic and pimaric acids, the most abundant
resin acids naturally occurring in wood, were quan-
ti®ed using a method developed in our laboratory,
based on a technique originally developed to quan-
tify the resin acid component of solder fumes
(Pengelly et al., 1994; Demers et al., 1998). After
post-weighing, the inhalable dust ®lters were
extracted in dichloromethane. The resin acids were
derivatized to their methyl esters, then quanti®ed
using gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. The
samples were analyzed in four batches, one for each
week of sampling. Limits of detection were calcu-
lated for each batch as the mean plus 3 times the
SD of the lowest concentration standard solution
detected by the mass spectrometer. For pimaric
acid, the mass limits of detection ranged from 0.05
to 0.50 mg, and for abietic acid, they ranged from
0.05 to 7.85 mg (the high limits of detection were for
batch 2 only). Samples with exposure concentrations
less than the detection limit were assigned a value of
the detection limit divided by the square root of 2
(Hornung and Reed, 1990). For the purposes of the
determinants of exposure model, a total resin acid
concentration was calculated as the sum of abietic
and pimeric acids.
Wood dust
There were opportunities for airborne exposures
to particulate other than wood dust (e.g., dust from
soil in the yard), however the particulate sampling
method used is non-speci®c. To consider wood dust
separately, concentrations were estimated using
resin acids as the basis, since these compounds are
characteristic of wood, but not of other dusts pre-
sent in the mill setting. The resin acid content of
each particulate sample was calculated as a percent
of particulate by weight (summary data presented in
Demers et al., 1998). Because resin acid content var-
ies between tree species, and within species accord-
ing to tree age, tree part, growing environment, and
storage conditions, the resin acid contents could not
be used to calculate wood concentrations of individ-
ual samples. We therefore decided to average the
resin acid content for groups of samples and use
these averages as the basis for calculating wood dust
concentrations, as follows.
The occupational hygienists who performed the
exposure measurements classi®ed the likelihood of
exposure to wood versus other particulates in each
job, based on proximity to dust-generating sources
 Exposure to particulate, wood dust, resin acids, and monoterpenes in a lumber mill environment
and tasks. All jobs were assigned to one of four cat-
egories:
1. all particulate expected to be wood;
2. majority of particulate expected to be wood;
3. majority of particulate expected to be from non-
wood sources; and
4. almost all particulate expected to be from non-
wood sources.
The mean resin acid content for each category
was then used as an indicator of the relative wood
dust content of the particulate in each group of
jobs. In category 1, with the highest mean resin acid
content, samples were assigned an estimated wood
dust concentration equal to the inhalable particulate
concentration (i.e., 100% of the particulate was
assumed to be wood). For each of the other cat-
egories, an estimated wood dust concentration was
calculated by weighting the inhalable particulate
concentration by the mean resin acid content rela-
tive to that of category 1. Category 2, majority
wood dust, had a weight of 70%; category 3, ma-
jority non-wood sources, had a weight of 40%; and
category 4, almost all non-wood sources, had a
weight of 10%. (Demers et al., 1998).
Monoterpenes
The volatile and odiferous component of soft-
wood resins, the monoterpenes (including a-pinene,
b-pinene, and D3-carene), was collected using SKC
575-003 passive samplers with 300 mg of Anasorb
727 as the sorbent (Eriksson et al., 1994; Demers et
al., 1998). A sampler was attached to each partici-
pant's lapel for the duration of the shift (7±8 h).
After sampling, the sampler was sealed, refrigerated,
and returned to the laboratory within 7 days.
Monoterpenes were desorbed in carbon disul®de,
then quanti®ed using gas chromatography with
¯ame ionization detection. The retention-time peaks
were 2.87 min for a-pinene, 3.34 min for b-pinene,
3.72 min for D3-carene, and 4.85 min for undecane.
A number of peaks with retention times between
3.72 and 4.85 min, of comparable size to those of
the three monoterpenes were also quanti®ed as `uni-
denti®ed wood volatiles'. Mass spectra of these
peaks were all similar and all were assigned an ap-
proximately 70% match by the NIST-92 mass spec-
tra library (National Institute of Standards and
Technology, USA) to the monoterpenes pinene, car-
ene, and phellandrene. Limits of detection were cal-
culated as the mean of 27 lab blanks plus 3 times
the SD. The mass limits of detection were 0.3 mg for
a-pinene, 1.4 mg for b-pinene, 0.2 mg for D3-carene,
and 0.9 mg for the unidenti®ed wood volatiles.
Samples with exposure concentrations less than the
detection limit were assigned a value of the detection
limit divided by the square root of 2 (Hornung and
Reed, 1990). For the purposes of the determinants
249
of exposure model, a total monoterpene concen-
tration was calculated as the sum of a-pinene, b-
pinene, D3-carene, and the unidenti®ed wood vola-
tiles.
Determinants of exposure
Information on potential determinants of ex-
posure was gathered at several levels: for each
sampling day, job, or individual sample.
Weather information was recorded on each
sampling day, in the morning at the start of the
shift, at midday, and at the end of the day shift.
Temperature and relative humidity were measured
using a Psychro-Dyne (Cole Parmer, Chicago,
USA). Both measures were averaged over the work-
ing shift. Precipitation was recorded as a dichoto-
mous variable (1=yes, 0=no); these measures were
summed over the working day, as the amount of
rain. Wind speed was recorded as an ordinal vari-
able (0=no wind, 1=little wind, 2=moderately
windy, and 3=very windy); the readings over the
work day were averaged. The species of tree pro-
cessed (alpine ®r, spruce and pine, or mixed) and
the level of production was recorded on every
sampling day for each department of the mill, based
on reports from production management personnel.
For each job sampled, the following information
was gathered: the mill department; up to four poten-
tial sources of dust exposure (including 27 pieces of
equipment such as saws, planing machines, and
cyclones; and two tasks, cleaning up sawdust and
manual lumber handling); the distance from these
sources; whether the sources were ventilated;
whether the sources were enclosed; whether the job
was performed in an operator's booth or vehicle
cab; an estimate of the percentage enclosure pro-
vided by the booth or cab; the source of air for a
booth or vehicle cab; whether the air was ®ltered;
the nearest source of natural ventilation (none, open
door, open window, outside air); and the distance to
the natural ventilation source.
For each individual sample, the worker was quer-
ied at the end of the measurement period about
which jobs he performed on that day (in most cases,
the employees worked at only one job, but in a few
cases, they rotated through 2 or 3 jobs in a shift),
the number of times he used compressed air for
`blowing down' sawdust, whether he used diesel
equipment, whether he used a chainsaw, the percen-
tage of the shift he spent in a booth or cab, the
species of trees processed in his area of the mill
(alpine ®r, spruce and pine, mixed), the condition of
the wood (green, kiln dried, chips, or mixed), and
how many cigarettes he smoked during the shift.
A new variable, % enclosure, was created by mul-
tiplying the % of time spent in a booth or cab by
the % enclosure provided by the booth or cab.
250 K. Teschke et al.
Data analysis
Descriptive statistics (counts for categorical data,
and means, ranges, standard deviations, and fre-
quency distributions for continuous data) were cal-
culated for all available variables. The distributions
of the exposure variables were positively skewed and
approximately log-normal, so exposures were log-
transformed (base e) prior to analysis to improve
the eciency of the models and to ensure that pre-
dicted concentrations would be greater than zero.
The number of compressed air blowdowns was also
log-normally distributed, so was also log-trans-
formed (base e).
We examined the correlations between all inde-
pendent variables (pearson r). Among pairs with
r=0.60, only one was selected for further inclusion
in the determinants of exposure models (the one
more logically explained as associated with ex-
posure, or the one more strongly associated with ex-
posure in univariate analyses). In all cases, variables
which were strongly correlated were logically related
in the mill operations (e.g., job `cleanup/janitor' was
strongly related to the task `cleaning up sawdust',
job `grader' was strongly related to the task `manual
lumber handling'). The e€ect of the variable that
was retained for analysis would reasonably include
the e€ect of the correlated variable.
We initially examined univariate associations
between each remaining variable and the log-trans-
formed exposure concentrations. Since several vari-
ables suggested that exposures di€ered depending
on whether the samples were taken indoors in the
production areas, versus outdoors in the log and
lumber yards, a new `indoors/outdoors' variable was
created, and used as a nesting variable for all other
variables, except tree species and wood condition.
No other interactions were suggested a priori, and
there were too many potential interactions to use-
fully test without prior hypotheses.
A manual backward stepwise regression pro-
cedure was used to create the exposure models. All
variables (except subject) with pR0.25 in univariate
modeling were initially o€ered in the model. An
exception was that variables representing hypoth-
esized exposure sources were also required to have a
positive coecient in univariate analyses. `Sources'
with negative coecients were likely to be negatively
correlated surrogates of other sources of exposure,
and therefore better excluded from the model.
Variables with the highest p-valuesr0.10 were elimi-
nated one at a time, then the model was re®tted
until all included variables had p < 0.10. A general
linear least squares model ®tting procedure was used
initially for all variables which could be treated as
®xed e€ects (using JMP, version 3.2, SAS Institute,
Cary, NC, 1997). Variables remaining were then re-
evaluated by ®tting the model using generalized esti-
mating equations (using the xtgee procedure in
Stata with subject as the group variable, link=iden-
tity, family=gaussian, and correlation=exchange-
able; version 5.0, Stata Corp., College Station, TX,
1997), allowing us to take into account the possible
correlation among repeated measures on subjects.
Within-subject correlation could only reduce the sig-
ni®cance levels of associations found for the ®xed
e€ects, therefore this step would only be expected to
remove variables from the model. Variables with
p r 0.10 according to the generalized estimating
equation method were removed from the model (for
the particulate models, only 1 variable was removed
at this stage; for the monoterpene model, 2 variables
were removed). Cook's D was used to check the
ordinary least squares version of the ®nal model for
in¯uential values, and residuals were plotted to look
for patterns in the unexplained variance.
RESULTS
The following descriptive information provides an
overview of the mill. In the mid 1990s, the lumber
mill received about 900,000 m3 of logs a year,
mainly by truck. The logs were stored prior to pro-
cessing in a large dry-land log yard, then debarked
mechanically, sorted by size, and sent to one of
three lines in the sawmill to make dimension lumber.
Di€erent production characteristics of alpine ®r
compared to spruce and pine required that it be pro-
cessed in the sawmill on di€erent days. Most of the
sawn lumber was dried to a moisture content of less
than 20% in one of 5 dry kilns. Dried rough lumber
was planed to a smooth ®nish in one of two planer
mills, then graded and bundled in preparation for
shipping. Except the cut-o€ saws and two of the pri-
mary breakdown saws, all of the saws and planing
machines were enclosed, but only the trim saws and
the planing machines had local exhaust ventilation.
The log storage yard had a dirt surface; the lumber
storage yard was paved. Bark waste was burned on
site; wood waste was chipped and sold to pulp mills.
235 subjects participated in the cross-sectional
study. Exposure measurements were made on 112
subjects in 37 jobs in 6 departments. Most of those
who did not participate in the measurement study
were maintenance, supervisory, oce or logging
sta€ not designated for sampling. The number of
samples per job ranged from 2 to 17, with a mean of
6.2. The number of samples per subject ranged from
1 to 5, with a mean of 2.0. A total of 229 ®lter
(inhalable particulate, estimated wood dust, and
resin acid) samples and 227 passive badge (monoter-
pene) samples were collected. Nine ®lter samples
were excluded from analysis because of pump fail-
ure, large cross-shift drops in pump ¯ow, or damage
to the ®lter cassette. Five passive samples were
either lost or damaged during collection.
Table 1 lists the arithmetic mean, geometric
mean, geometric standard deviation, minimum,
maximum, and percent of measurements less than
 Exposure to particulate, wood dust, resin acids, and monoterpenes in a lumber mill environment 251

Table 1. Summary of inhalable particulate, estimated wood dust, total resin acid, and total monoterpene exposure con-
centrations

Exposure N AMa GMa GSDa Minimum detected %< LODb Maximum

3
Inhalable particulate (mg/m ) 220 1.76 0.98 2.67 0.031 0 25.4
Estimated wood dust (mg/m3) 220 1.00 0.49 3.13 0.024 0 25.4
Total resin acids (mg/m3) 220 22.8 8.04 4.39 1.39 17.7 370.2
Total monoterpenes (mg/m3) 222 2.49 1.11 3.14 0.30 21.2 30.2
a
AM=arithmetic mean, GM=geometric mean, GSD=geometric standard deviation.
b
%< LOD=percent of measurements less than limit of detection; for total resin acids, the LOD varied from 0.49 to
11.9 mg/m3 for samples in which both abietic and pimaric acid concentrations were below detection limits; for total
monoterpenes, the LOD varied from 0.29 to 0.64 mg/m3 for samples in which a-pinene, b-pinene, D3-carene, and the uni-
denti®ed wood volatiles all had concentrations below detection limits.

the detection limits for each of the exposures
measured or estimated in this study. Correlations
between the ®lter-based measurements (not log-
transformed) were high: 0.78 between inhalable par-
ticulate and estimated wood dust; 0.60 between
inhalable particulate and total resin acids; and 0.81
between estimated wood dust and total resin acids.
Correlations between the total monoterpene
measurements and the ®lter samples were negligible:
ÿ0.02 for inhalable particulates; 0.08 for estimated
wood dust; and 0.11 for total resin acids.
The following variables were not o€ered in any of
the multiple regression models either because they
were not associated with exposure ( p>0.25), were
strongly correlated with other selected variables, or
were `sources' which were negatively associated with
exposure: date, amount of rain, type of natural ven-
tilation, distance from natural ventilation, booth or
cab air source, number of cigarettes smoked, log
drops, log cuto€ saws, planer feeder/tilt hoist, tilt
hoist operator, chain height change, automatic lum-
ber stackers, stacker operator, dry lumber o€-
bearers, lumber piles, manual lumber handling,
lumber packaging machine, chip blowers, and road
surface. The following variables were associated
with at least one exposure in univariate analyses,
and were o€ered in multiple regression models for
the associated exposure, but were not entered in any
of the ®nal exposure models ( p r 0.10): week of
sampling, day of week, average temperature, pro-
duction level, booth or cab, sawmill, log yard, lum-
ber yard, maintenance, logs, barkers, A5 debarker
operator, model C edger operator, small board
edgers, small board dropsorter, large board dropsor-
ter, dropping lumber, trimmerman, grader, placing
sticks to separate lumber for kiln drying, automatic
lumber sorter attendant, packaging machine oper-
ator, yard labourer, cleanup/janitor, and dust-con-
trol cyclone.
Tables 2a and 2b describe the ®nal determinants
of exposure models for inhalable particulate, esti-
mated wood dust, total resin acids, and total mono-
terpenes. Table 2a summarizes the ®t of the models.
The residual within-subject correlations were low.
Note that the generalized estimating equation model
does not constrain these correlations to be positive;
however, since negative correlations are implausible
in this scenario, the negative correlations were inter-
preted as evidence that within-subject correlations
were negligible. Predicted values were calculated
using the predictors for each study measurement.
Summary statistics indicate that the geometric
means of the predicted values were the same as
those for the raw data, but geometric standard devi-
ations were somewhat smaller. Since the generalized
estimating equations do not allow calculation of R2,

Table 2a. Fit of multiple regression models for inhalable particulate, estimated wood dust, total resin acid, and total
monoterpene exposure, using generalized estimating equationsa

Inhalable particulate Estimated wood dust Total resin acid Total monoterpene

Number of observations 220 220 220 222

Degrees of freedom 20 25 18 17
chi2 270.8 452.6 395.8 1078
p-value <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001 <0.00001
R2 b 0.61 0.73 0.66 0.80
Within-subject correlation 0.23 0.21 ÿ0.023 ÿ0.17
GMc of predicted values 0.98 mg/m3 0.49 mg/m3 8.04 mg/m3 1.11 mg/m3
GSDc of predicted values 2.16 2.66 3.32 2.78
Minimum predicted value 0.13 mg/m3 0.036 mg/m3 0.578 mg/m3 0.46 mg/m3
Maximum predicted value 7.71 mg/m3 5.05 mg/m3 190 mg/m3 14.8 mg/m3
a
xtgee procedure in Stata, with subject as the group variable, link=identity, family=gaussian, and correlation=ex-
changeable.
b
the proportion of variance explained (R2) could not be calculated for the xtgee model, therefore this represents the
ordinary least squares R2 for the same model, without taking into account the within-subject correlation.
c
GM=geometric mean, GSD=geometric standard deviation.
 252

Table 2b. Descriptive data, coecients, and standard errors for independent variables in multiple regression modelsa of inhalable particulate (mg/m3), wood dust (mg/m3), total resin acid
(mg/m3), and total monoterpene (mg/m3) concentrations (all log-transformed, base e). All independent variables dichotomous except where otherwise noted.b=regression coecient;
SE=standard error; N=number of measurements in dataset with this characteristic, for categorical variables; M=mean, SD=standard deviation, GM=geometric mean, GSD=geometric
standard deviation, for ordinal and continuous variables; ref=reference category; Ð=variable not included in model

Inhalable particulate Wood dust model Total resin acid Total monoterpene
Independent Variables (descriptive data) model model model

b (SE) b (SE) b (SE) b (SE)

Tree species (3 categories)

Spruce and pine (N=43) ref ref ref ref
Alpine ®r (N=56) ÿ0.37 (0.12) ÿ0.28 (0.12) ÿ0.61 (0.19) ÿ0.62 (0.12)
Mixed (N=130) ÿ0.60 (0.15) ÿ0.94 (0.24 ÿ1.21 (0.23) ÿ0.68 (0.19)
Wood condition (4 categories)
Green (N=126) Ð ref Ð Ð
Kiln dried (N=85) Ð 0.33 (0.21) Ð Ð
Chips (N=4) Ð 1.85 (0.48) Ð Ð
Mixed (N=14) Ð 0.052 (0.26) Ð Ð
Outdoors, in the yardb (N=49) ref ref ref ref
Average relative humidity (continuous, %; M=53.6, SD=16.1) ÿ0.041 (0.006) ÿ0.039 (0.006) Ð Ð
Average wind speed (ordinal, 0±3; M=1.46, SD=0.51) ÿ0.68 (0.19) ÿ0.70 (0.19) Ð Ð
Enclosure (continuous, %; M=66.6, SD=41.2) ÿ0.0097 (0.004) ÿ0.019 (0.007) ÿ0.009 (0.003) Ð
Chainsaw useT (N=6) Ð Ð ÿ1.24 (0.43) Ð
K. Teschke et al.

Buckerj (N=4) Ð 1.35 (0.53) Ð Ð

Diesel equipment useT (N=47) 0.93 (0.44) Ð Ð Ð
Le tourneau driverJ (N=5) 0.95 (0.39) 2.81 (0.83) Ð Ð
Log loaderJ (N=7) Ð 1.97 (0.78) Ð Ð
Sawmill outfeed forklift driverJ (N=4) 0.85 (0.39) 2.69 (0.83) Ð Ð
Kiln utility forklift driverJ (N=7) Ð 0.90 (0.48) Ð Ð
Planer mill infeed forklift driverJ (N=5) Ð 1.43 (0.63) Ð Ð
Planer mill outfeed forklift driverJ (N=5) Ð 1.30 (0.74) Ð Ð
Yard equipment operatorJ (N=6) Ð 1.91 (0.78) Ð Ð
Indoors, in lumber production areasb (N=180) ÿ3.01 (0.57) ÿ1.31 (0.61) 0.69 (0.48) 1.38 (0.19)
Average relative humidity (continuous, %; M=50.3, SD=11.2) ÿ0.012 (0.004) ÿ0.012 (0.004) ÿ0.013 (0.006) Ð
Enclosure (continuous, %; M=26.7, SD=42.3) ÿ0.0056 (0.002) ÿ0.011 (0.002) ÿ0.0040 (0.002) ÿ0.011 (0.002)
Compressed air blowdownsT (continuous, ln no.; GM=0.34, GSD=5.42) Ð Ð Ð 0.076 (0.024)
Cleaning up sawdustT (N=18) 1.27 (0.21) 1.70 (0.20) 2.39 (0.25) Ð
Chainsaw useT (N=24) Ð Ð 0.44 (0.24) Ð
Log cut-o€ operatorJ (N=17) ÿ0.49 (0.24) Ð ÿ0.89 (0.33) Ð
Deckman/log deck attendantJ (N=4) ÿ0.69 (0.40) ÿ0.75 (0.37) ÿ1.83 (0.50) Ð
A4 and unclassi®ed barkers operatorJ (N=4) Ð Ð Ð 1.20 (0.24)
Headrig and large board edgerE (N=17) Ð Ð Ð 0.60 (0.23)
Head sawyerJ (N=4) ÿ0.71 (0.35) Ð ÿ0.86 (0.45) 0.58 (0.32)
 Exposure to particulate, wood dust, resin acids, and monoterpenes in a lumber mill environment 253

a comparison of the geometric standard deviations

(0.32)
(0.35)
(0.23)

(0.20)
(0.17)
(0.11)
(0.21)
(0.19)
(0.19)

(0.20)
of the raw data and the predicted values is a way of
examining the proportion of variance explained.
Alternatively, the models explained 61 to 80% of

ÿ0.077
the ordinary least squares variance. Residuals were
0.95
0.70
1.06

0.95
0.78
0.40
ÿ1.13
ÿ1.20
ÿ1.20
Ð

Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
symmetrically distributed and no values were shown
to be in¯uential (all Cook's DW 1.0).
Table 2b lists the coecients and standard errors
of the independent variables included in the models,
(0.47)

(0.23)
(0.28)
(0.39)
(0.52)
(0.39)

(0.36)
as well as descriptive data about these variables. All

indoors vs outdoors is a single variable used as the basis for nesting all others, except tree species and wood condition; outdoors is the reference category
the variables were modeled as ®xed e€ects, except
within-subject correlation, included as a random
e€ect. The variables included in the models are pre-
ÿ0.82

ÿ0.47
1.70
1.42
1.15
1.47

2.82
sented in logical groupings. For example, indoor
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð

Ð
jobs, equipment, and departments are listed in order
of their appearance in the lumber mill production
process.
Only three factors had similar in¯uences on all
(0.20)

(0.19)
(0.29)

(0.50)
(0.58)

four exposures. Spruce and pine produced higher ex-

posures than alpine ®r which had higher exposures
than mixed tree species (the latter result is not logi-
cal and may result from confounding related to the
0.55

0.47
0.90

1.50
1.83
Ð
Ð
Ð

Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð

Ð
Ð

planer, kiln and yard locations where mixed species

were present). Cleaning up sawdust (compressed air
blowdowns for the monoterpenes) increased ex-
posures. And personnel enclosure in booths or cabs
(0.38)

(0.16)
(0.26)

(0.20)
(0.31)

(0.54)

(% enclosure) was an e€ective means of reducing ex-

posures.
Not surprisingly, there were many similarities
between the models for the particulate-linked ex-
ÿ0.97

ÿ0.36
0.87

0.70
0.69

3.90

posures (inhalable particulate, estimated wood dust,

Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð
Ð

Ð
Ð

Ð
Ð
Ð

and total resin acids). Exposures decreased with

increasing relative humidity, and also decreased in
jobs at the log deck before the logs entered the mill.
Exposures were substantially increased around the
planing machines, especially for resin acids.
Estimated wood dust and inhalable particulate ex-
posures were also increased in many jobs or tasks
involving mobile equipment use in the yard, but
resin acid exposures were not.
xtgee procedure in Stata, with subject as the group variable.

Monoterpene exposures were di€erently distribu-

ted in the mill: higher than average exposures were
measured in many sawmill jobs and near sawmill
machines at the beginning of the lumber sawing pro-
T =task, J=job, E=equipment, D=department.

cess (i.e., the headrig, canter, edgers, and trimsaws),

whereas lower exposures were found in the two pla-
ner mills and the yard.
Planer feeder operatorJ (N=8)
Roving utility workerJ (N=4)
Board edger operatorJ (N=4)
Gang edger operatorJ (N=4)

Carpentry machinesE (N=2)

Planing machinesE (N=25)
Stacker labourerJ (N=16)

Planer technicianJ (N=4)

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

Canter operatorJ (N=8)

Scrap conveyorE (N=6)

Planer mill IID (N=39)
DescramblersE (N=34)

Planer mill ID (N=34)

The determinants models describe factors associ-

TrimsawsE (N=29)

ated with lumber mill exposures and provide valu-

CanterE (N=16)

able information for the purpose of locating and

selecting exposure controls. In general, lumber
handling operations, such as grading, sorting, pull-
ing, and stacking lumber, did not contribute to any
Intercept

of the contaminant exposures; exposures in these

jobs are accounted for by the environmental con-
b
a

ditions in the mill production areas that are included

254 K. Teschke et al.
in the ®nal model. Sawing green wood was the main
contributor to monoterpene exposures. These wood
volatiles were almost completely released by the
sawmill cutting operations and kiln drying, so that
planer mill exposures were as low as those in the
yard where no cutting was taking place. Cleaning up
sawdust, planing kiln-dried lumber, and driving in
the yard increased exposures to particulates. The
planing machines were enclosed, but these controls
were not sucient to maintain exposures at low
levels, likely in part because these enclosures were
often opened. The models did indicate that person-
nel enclosures (booths in the production areas and
cabs on mobile equipment in the yard) were an
e€ective control mechanism, with the potential for
reducing exposures by two- to six-fold, proportion-
ate to the percent enclosure provided (including
both the amount of time spent in the enclosure and
the amount of physical enclosure provided). A limi-
tation of this study is that since only one mill was
included, the in¯uence of factors which are more
likely to vary between than within mills, such as
production level, log storage methods, local exhaust
ventilation, and enclosure of saws, could not be
observed. Because measurements were taken in only
one season, temperatures were relatively stable
(mean=16.98C, SD=3.28C), so it is not surprising
that this element of weather did not enter the
models.
The models provide useful information for epide-
miological purposes. They indicate clear di€erences
in patterns of exposure between the particulate and
volatile components of wood, so that investigations
of exposure±response relationships using these
models should be able to distinguish which are more
likely to be the proximate risk factors for any
observed morbidity. Even within the group of par-
ticulate contaminants, there are di€erences in the
models, despite the strong correlations between the
measured or estimated concentrations. The ultimate
value of the models for the epidemiological investi-
gation depends on the validity of the models in pre-
dicting exposures during any time periods at risk.
Because of the small sample size, we chose not to set
aside a portion of the dataset for testing the model.
Another method for assessing the validity is to com-
pare the models for consistency with other studies.
We are currently in the process of analyzing several
other sawmill datasets, including some with histori-
cal data. These will be used to look for similarities
and di€erences in exposure determinants. A number
of investigators have measured dust and monoter-
pene exposures in sawmills (see Demers et al., 1998;
Teschke et al., 1994), but few have reported about
exposure determinants.
In a previous study of determinants of particulate
levels in two western Canadian coastal sawmills, we
examined fewer potential exposure determinants,
but results were similar: personnel enclosure reduced
exposures approximately 3-fold; exposures in the
planing mill were higher than in the sawmill; wood
chips increased exposures; and exposures at the
front end of the sawmill (log cut-o€ saw, barker,
head saw) tended to be lower than in other areas of
the mill (Teschke et al., 1994). The average levels of
inhalable particulate measured in the current study
were considerably higher than total particulate levels
measured in the earlier study (where the geometric
mean was 0.12 mg/m3, and the arithmetic mean was
0.51 mg/m3). This is likely due in part to the di€er-
ent measurement technique. In side-by-side sampling
of inhalable and total particulate in sawmills, we
found that the 7-hole sampler used in this study cap-
tured on average 2.4 times more mass than a closed-
face total dust cassette (Davies et al., 1998). Other
factors may have contributed to the higher levels
observed in the current study mill, for example dry
land storage of the logs rather than water-based sto-
rage, and a higher proportion of kiln-dried lumber
processed in the planing mill. Few other studies
have investigated determinants of dust exposure in
sawmills. In a study of Finnish lumber mills,
Kauppinen et al. (1984) measured the highest par-
ticulate exposures among cleanup personnel, similar
to our results, however exposures in other jobs fol-
lowed patterns much di€erent than in the western
Canadian mills. Elevated exposures were observed
in manual lumber sorting, packaging, and edging
jobs, and low exposures were measured in the planer
mill. Halpin et al. (1994) also found lower levels of
inhalable particulate in the `dry' mill after kiln-dry-
ing than in the `green' mill area of a UK sawmill. It
is not possible to suggest reasons for these di€er-
ences, since no information is given on such factors
as the pattern of personnel enclosure or cutting
equipment used in the study mills.
Eriksson (1996) measured monoterpene exposures
in four Swedish sawmills and found the highest ex-
posures among those sawing `trees' (assumed to be
logs), edging boards, and cleaning up sawdust,
whereas those sorting boards had lower exposures.
This pattern is very similar to that found in our
study, despite the fact that average monoterpene
levels were 1 to 2 orders of magnitude lower in the
Canadian mill. Di€erences in the overall exposure
levels could be caused by di€erences in tree species,
log storage conditions, or even factors in the trees'
growing environment.
Abietic and pimeric acids appear not to have been
measured previously in sawmills. It is important to
note that resin acids represent only one of many
components that make up the complex matrix of
wood and that to date have not been considered in
industrial hygiene surveys. We were concerned
about the high limits of detection for the resin acids
in one of the four batches of samples. However,
week of sampling (equivalent to batch) did not enter
 Exposure to particulate, wood dust, resin acids, and monoterpenes in a lumber mill environment
the resin acid model, indicating that the detection
limit did not in¯uence results.
Current measurement methods for `wood dust'
use ®lter capture with gravimetric analysis and
therefore do not distinguish between dust com-
ponents. Although we tried to estimate the wood
component of the particulate, the models reported
here suggest that our wood dust estimation pro-
cedure was not ideal. The estimated wood dust
model predicts higher exposures for mobile equip-
ment drivers than in other yard jobs, whereas the
resin acid model predicts lower exposures in the
completely enclosed cabs of mobile equipment. This
suggests that our method for estimating wood dust
exposure, which assumed constant wood dust pro-
portions in a given area of the mill, may not have
excluded particulate mass from soil in the mobile
equipment jobs. We also considered visual inspec-
tion of the ®lters for particulate colour and mor-
phology as a means of identifying wood particulate,
but found that this method was very poorly corre-
lated with resin acid levels (Demers et al., 1998).
Other methods for distinguishing the wood com-
ponent of dust in the future might include analysis
for total organic carbon, or microscopic evaluation
of the ®lter.
In summary, these data provide guidance about
the locations and jobs in the mill where exposures
were highest, indicate tasks, tree species, weather,
and wood conditions which contributed to exposure,
and suggest e€ective control measures. Since this
study included only one lumber mill in one season,
it would be speculation to suggest that the results
are generalizable, but a few other reports of particu-
late and monoterpene exposures indicate some con-
sistency between studies. We hope that future
investigations of sawmill environments will include
detailed documentation of potential exposure deter-
minants so that problems within the industry can be
identi®ed and solutions found.
AcknowledgementsÐThe authors thank all the mill
employees who took part in the study, as well as the com-
pany, Canadian Forest Products, and the union, IWA±
Canada, for their support throughout the study. J. A.
Polonijo of the Workers' Compensation Board Laboratory
255
assisted in the development of the analysis methods for the
resin acid samples. Funding for this study was provided in
part by research grants from the Department of Labor and
Industries of the State of Washington and the Workers'
Compensation Board of British Columbia.
REFERENCES
Davies, H. W., Teschke, K. and Demers, P. A. (1998) A
®eld comparison of inhalable and thoracic size selective
sampling techniques. Annals of Occupational Hygiene
(Submitted).
Demers, P.A., Teschke, K. Kennedy, S. M., Davies, H.
and Leung, V. (1998) Exposure to dust, resin acids, and
monoterpenes in a softwood lumber mill. American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal (Submitted).
Demers, P. A., Teschke, K. and Kennedy, S. M. (1997)
What to do about softwood? A review of respiratory
e€ects and recommendations regarding exposure limits.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine 31, 385±398.
Eriksson, K., Levin, J.-O., RheÂn, M. and Lindahl, R.
(1994) Evaluation of a di€usive sampler for air sampling
of monoterpenes. Analyst 119, 85±88.
Eriksson, K. (1996) Occupational exposure to terpenes in
saw mills and joinery shops. Dissertation, Department
of Environmental Technology and Work Sciences,
Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, Sweden.
Halpin, D. M. G., Graneck, B. J., Lacey, J.,
Nieuwenhuijsen, M. J., Williamson, P. A. M., Venables,
K. M. and Newman Taylor, A. J. (1994) Respiratory
symptoms, immunological responses, and aeroallergen
concentrations at a sawmill. Occupational and Environ-
mental Medicine 51, 165±172.
Hornung, R. W. and Reed, L. D. (1990) Estimation of
average concentration in the presence of non-detectable
values. Applied Occupational and Environmental Hygiene
5, 46±51.
IARC Working Group (1995) Wood dust and formal-
dehyde. In IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the
Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, Vol. 62.
IARC, Lyon, France.
Kauppinen, V. T., Lindroos, L. and Makinen, R. (1984)
Concentrations of wood dust measured in the work-
room air at sawmills and plywood factories. Staub±
Reinhalt Luft 44, 322±324.
Pengelly, M. I., Foster, R. D., Groves, J. A., Ellwood, P.
A., Turnbull, G. B. and Wagg, R. M. (1994) An investi-
gation into the composition of solder fume. Annals of
Occupational Hygiene 38, 753±763.
Teschke, K., Hertzman, C. and Morrison, B. (1994) Level
and distribution of employee exposures to total and res-
pirable wood dust in two Canadian sawmills. American
Industrial Hygiene Association Journal 55, 245±250.