Empirical Analysis of Dust Health Impacts on Construction Workers Considering Work Types

Abstract

In the construction industry, workers are exposed to hazardous emissions, such as dust, and various diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), which affect workers. There is, however, a lack of studies that evaluate the dust that workers are exposed to, taking into account different factors of dust. Therefore, this study aims to estimate the amount of dust construction workers are exposed to by considering different factors of dust emission and to assess the health and economic impact of dust emissions. This study is conducted in three steps: (1) scope definition, (2) definition of worker dust exposure, and (3) health impact assessment. As a result, dust concentrations from the energy used, the atmosphere, and during construction activities were 1.01 × 10⁻⁵ µg/m³, 37.50 µg/m³, and 1.33 × 10⁴ µg/m³ respectively. Earthwork had the highest dust concentration of 3.85 × 10³ µg/m³. The total added number of disability-adjusted life years (DALY) of workers was 0.0542a with an economic cost of $13,691.00. The contributions of this study are the accurate assessment of the amount of dust workers are exposed to and the development of policies to help compensate construction workers suffering from dust emission-related diseases.

1. Introduction

Emissions produced during the construction of a building are a source of concern because the environment is polluted and construction workers are exposed to a variety of chronic ailments [1]. Dust is one of the emissions emitted during the construction process. In South Korea, PM₁₀ emissions for one year in 2017 were categorized into ten emission sources, i.e., energy industry combustion, non-industrial combustion, manufacturing industry combustion, production process, road-mobile pollution sources, non-road mobile pollution sources, waste treatment, other area sources, fugitive dust, and biological combustion [2]. PM₁₀ emissions from non-road mobile pollution sources and fugitive dust are the sources related to construction activities and accounted for 109,932 tons/year and 16,194 tons/year, respectively. This was 50.3% and 7.4% of the total PM₁₀ emissions for that year [2].

Studies conducted in the United States indicated that the aging of the labor force in the construction industry is greater compared to other industries, therefore it is important to pay attention to the industry’s injury, illness, and fatality trends [3,4]. Various health diseases, such as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), silicosis, lung cancer, cardiovascular disease, pneumoconiosis, cerebrovascular disease, and acute respiratory infection, are associated with dust when construction workers or residents living near construction sites are exposed [5,6,7,8]. A study conducted in Denmark by Mølgaard et al. [9] indicated that there is a higher risk of cement and concrete workers and demolition workers being hospitalized due to COPD.

Various interventions have been made to control dust emissions. The Seoul Metropolitan Government took the initiative to install fine dust meters at large construction sites as part of efforts to reduce and monitor dust exposure to workers and people living nearby [10]. Additionally, in the year 2016, the Clean Air Conservation Act was established in South Korea to assist in preventing air pollution that has a considerable negative impact on both human health and the environment [11]. It states in Article 43 that necessary measures should be taken by businesses to control fugitive dust [11].

Most studies have been conducted to quantify the environmental impacts of buildings using life cycle assessment (LCA), considering the building material manufacture, building material transportation, construction, operation, and end-of-life/demolition stages of a building [12,13,14,15,16,17,18].

Previous research has also focused on determining dust concentrations and health risks at building sites [19,20,21,22,23,24].

In the construction phase of a building, different construction work types or activities such as earthwork, structural work, masonry work, etc. take place [25]. Different construction equipment is used for each work type or activity. However, the analysis of dust from construction equipment considering different work types has not been widely studied. Furthermore, the combination of different factors of dust sources, such as dust in the atmosphere, dust emission from the energy used by the construction equipment, and dust produced during the construction activities, has not been studied.

Therefore, this study aims to estimate the amount of dust construction workers are exposed to by considering different factors of dust emission and to assess the health and economic impact of dust emissions.

2. Literature Review

Previous studies related to dust emissions and their impacts on the construction industry have been carried out. These include (1) studies that used LCA to assess the environmental impacts of buildings, (2) studies that measured dust concentrations and analyzed the health risk, and (3) studies that assessed the economic costs of dust-related health impacts.

First, several studies have analyzed the environmental and health impacts of building using LCA [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,26]. With particular regard to the emissions from the energy used in the construction phase, Hong et al. [16] developed a model to assess the energy consumption and greenhouse gas emissions during the construction phase of a building. The authors concluded that on-site construction accounted for 4.03% of energy consumption and 3.08% of global warming potential [16]. Li et al. [18] developed a disability-adjusted life year (DALY) model to assess the human health impact caused by construction dust. The results of this study demonstrated that the proposed model can quantify environmental and human health impacts related to construction activities [18]. Bilec et al., [26] focused on particulate matter, global warming potential, and energy usage assessment of a building. The authors concluded that the impact during the construction stage is not significant compared to the use phase, but it is important [26].

Second, measurements of dust concentration during construction activities and their health risks were carried out in several studies [19,22,23,24,27,28,29]. For example, Tong et al. [19] developed a probabilistic risk assessment model to assess the health risk of construction dust on workers. The results indicated that workers in the steel and template zones had the highest health damage [19]. Normohammadi et al. [22] analyzed the silica dust demolition workers are exposed to at building demolition sites. The results showed that the mean of the dust exposure was higher than the threshold limit value for silica dust [22].

Third, the monetary valuation of dust health impacts in the construction industry has been analyzed [20,21]. Luo et al. [20] evaluated the health risks and economic costs caused by dust produced during the earthwork construction phase. The authors suggested effective dust control measures, and these control measures can reduce health risks by 76.89%. Furthermore, the results showed an economic cost of $2490.11 without dust isolation effects [20].

There are several limitations to these studies. First, the previous studies did not estimate dust emissions from energy used by construction equipment during different construction activities or work types. Second, the integration of different factors, such as dust in the atmosphere, dust produced during construction, and dust from energy used by construction equipment, has not been widely studied. Third, the economic cost of dust health impacts considering different construction work types has not been widely studied. Hence, in this study, the dust health impact considering three factors (dust emission from the energy used by the construction equipment, dust in the atmosphere, and dust produced during the various construction activities or work types) is assessed.

3. Materials and Methods

As shown in Figure 1, the study involves three steps: (1) scope definition (2) definition of worker dust exposure (3) health impact assessment.

First, the scope of this study is defined, and eight (8) different construction work types were selected. Second, dust exposure of construction workers considering the dust from energy used by the construction equipment, dust in the atmosphere, and dust produced during the construction process is considered. Third, the various health impacts of dust were assessed using disability-adjusted life years (DALY) and willingness to pay (WTP).

3.1. Scope Definition

The following construction work types were considered in this study as defined in the bill of quantity of the project and by the Construction Association of Korea [30].

• Temporary work
• Earthwork
• Reinforced concrete work
• Steel and metal work
• Structural work
• Masonry work
• Pavement work
• Demolition work

3.2. Definition of Worker Dust Exposure

There are various dust factors that construction workers are exposed to in order to quantify the health impact of dust on construction workers. In this study, three factors are considered: dust emission from the energy used by the construction equipment, dust in the atmosphere, and dust produced during the various construction activities.

Table 1. Reference for factors considered in the definition of worker dust exposure.

Factor	Reference
Dust emission from energy used by construction equipment	[16,17]
Dust in the atmosphere	[31,32,33]
Dust produced during the construction activities	[19,22,23,24,27,28,29]

shows the references for considering the three factors in the definition of worker dust exposure. The factors are further explained in the sections below.

3.2.1. Dust Emission from Energy Used by Construction Equipment

Each work type necessitates the use of construction equipment, which consumes fuel or energy and emits various pollutants such as dust into the environment during the construction work type process [16].

To calculate the emission of dust from construction equipment, various characteristics, such as the amount of work done per hour by the construction equipment and energy consumption of the equipment, should be considered [16,17]. Therefore, dust emitted from various construction equipment is calculated using Equation (1). This study used the dust emission factors of diesel (7.20 × 10⁻⁵ kg/L) and electricity (1.08 × 10⁻⁴ kg/kWh) provided in the LCI database available in South Korea [34].

Table 2. Energy consumption and work done per hour for various construction equipment.

Construction Equipment	Unit	Amount of Work Done per Hour	Energy Consumption per Hour (l/h or kW/h)	Reference
Truck crane	ea/h	0.06	10.00	[16]
Backhoe	m3/h	55.15	19.50	[16]
Excavator	m3/h	12.27	5.00	[16]
Compactor	m3/h	9.70	1.00	[16]
Breaker	m3/h	3.20	9.92	[17]
Roller	m3/h	11.64	3.20	[16]
Concrete pump car	m3/h	40.30	31.00	[16]
Tower crane	ton/h	20.00	120.00 *	[35]
Concrete pump car	m3/h	40.30	31.00	[16]
Mortar mixer	m3/h	0.30	1.87 *	[16]
Mortar pump	m3/h	1.80	3.70 *	[16]
Block cutting machine	ea/h	50.00	1.49 *	[36]

* Values have the unit of kW/h.

shows the references for energy consumption and the amount of work done per hour by various construction equipment.

$$E=\frac{Q}{q}\times E{C}_i\times E{F}_i$$

(1)

where E is the dust emission from various construction work types (kg), Q is the quantity of material (unit), q is the amount of work done per hour by the construction equipment (unit/hour), i is the energy type used by the construction equipment i.e., diesel or electricity, EC_i is the energy consumption of construction equipment per hour considering energy type i (liter/hour or kW/hour), and EF_i is the emission factor of dust for energy type i (kg/L or kW).

3.2.2. Dust in the Atmosphere

In terms of fine dust, South Korea is infamous for having poor air quality. This is caused by various activities related to manufacturing, transportation, and yellow dust that is carried into the atmosphere by powerful winds from China [31,32].

There are high concentrations of PM₁₀ in South Korea [33], so it is important to consider this dust when estimating the total amount of dust construction workers are exposed to. An average PM₁₀ concentration of 37.5 µg/m³ in South Korea taken from a study conducted by Lee et al. [33] was used in this study as the dust level in the atmosphere.

3.2.3. Dust Produced during Construction Activities

There is dust produced during various work types, such as earthwork, where dust is produced from excavating materials and stockpiling; and during masonry work when dust is produced when cutting concrete bricks.

Previous studies that measured dust concentrations during various construction work activities were considered.

Table 3. References to dust concentration produced during construction activities.

Construction Work Type	Dust Concentration during Work Type (µg/m3)	Reference
Temporary work	1.80 × 102	[19]
Earthwork	3.82 × 103	[20]
Reinforced concrete work	3.30 × 102	[27]
Steel and metal work	1.42 × 102	[19]
Structural work	2.13 × 102	[19]
Masonry work	3.77 × 102	[28]
Pavement work	6.40 × 102	[29]
Demolition work	1.06 × 102	[37]

shows the references for dust concentration values for the construction work types from previous studies.

3.3. Health Impact Assessment

In this step, the health risk of dust exposure to workers is quantitatively evaluated. The health impact assessment is divided into three steps: classification, characterization, and economic valuation. The results from the dust exposure are used to quantify the health impacts.

3.3.1. Classification

Based on the study of environmental epidemiology and pathology, three main diseases were used as the health damage in this study: chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), acute respiratory infections, and pneumoconiosis caused by dust [38].

3.3.2. Characterization

In the characterization step, the health impact on human bodies caused by dust is quantified. This is done by following three steps: fate analysis, effect analysis, and damage assessment [39].

Fate Analysis

The emission of dust from energy used by the construction equipment is converted into the added concentrations of dust using Equation (2). The value of the fate factor 4.17 × 10⁻¹⁵ m⁻³ was calculated by considering the PM₁₀ emissions (10,533 tons) and concentration level (44 μg/m³) in Seoul, South Korea [2]. Therefore, Equation (3) is used to calculate the total concentration of dust workers are exposed to, considering the three factors in Section 3.2.

$$C_1=F\times E$$

(2)

$$C=C_1\times C_2\times C_3$$

(3)

where C₁ is the added concentration of dust from energy used by construction equipment (μg/m³), F is the fate factor (m⁻³), E is the emission of dust during each work type (μg), C₂ is the dust concentration in the atmosphere (μg/m³), C₃ is the dust concentration produced during the construction activities (μg/m³), and C is the total concentration (μg/m³).

Effect Analysis

In the effect analysis step, the relationship between dust pollutants and health effects is characterized using risk factors and the added number of patients with health damage caused by a unit concentration of dust is calculated using Equations (4) and (5).

Table 4. UR values for various types of health damage.

Type of Health Damage	UR Value (Cases/(μg·m−3))
COPD	6.00 × 10−7
Acute respiratory infections	6.30 × 10−3
Pneumoconiosis	7.70 × 10−7

Note: UR is the effect factor of health damage in cases per concentration of dust.

shows the values of the effect factors for the health damages [39]. The average life expectancy of the Korean population is 78.6 years, which was used in this study [40].

$$H{D}_{i }=N\times \frac{U{R}_i}{L}$$

(4)

$$T_i=H{D}_i\times C$$

(5)

where HD_i is the added cases of health damage i caused by dust increase per unit concentration (cases/(μg·m⁻³·a)), N is the number of workers, UR_i is the effect factor (cases/(μg·m⁻³)), L is the average lifetime of workers (a), and T_i is the added number of patients with health damage i caused by dust (cases/a).

Damage Assessment

The disability-adjusted life year (DALY) is used in this study to quantitatively determine the relationship between dust emissions and their health impacts on workers. Murray [41] developed DALY to quantify the overall disease burden, which is expressed as the years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD) (Equations (6)–(8)).

Table 5. Health damage duration and disability weights.

Type of Health Damage	Li (a)	DW
COPD	20	0.15
Acute respiratory infections	0.004	0.03
Pneumoconiosis	15	0.26

Note: L_i is the duration of health damage in years and DW is the disability weight of health damage (unitless).

shows the duration and disability weights for the health damage [39].

$$DAL{Y}_i=YL{L}_i+YL{D}_i$$

(6)

$$YL{D}_i=L_i\times D{W}_i$$

(7)

$$U_i=T_i\times DAL{Y}_i$$

(8)

where DALY_i is the disability-adjusted life years of disease case i (a/case), YLL_i is the years of life lost to disease case i (a/case), YLD_i is the years of life with disability from disease case i (a/case), Li is the duration of disease case i (a), DW_i is disability weight of disease case i, and U_i is the added number of DALY of a worker with health damage i caused by dust emission (a).

3.3.3. Economic Valuation of Health Impacts

In this step, the health damage is converted into an economic cost. The following are the reasons for converting the health damage to an economic cost. First of all, it aids in drawing decision-makers’ attention to environmental issues [42]. Second, it assists in prioritizing and weighing the costs and benefits of various environmental concerns [42]. To do this, the study adopts the concept of willingness to pay, which is the amount of money that the general public is willing to pay to avoid any disease or premature death [43]. First, the value of a statistical life (VSL) for the target country is calculated using Equation (9) [44]. Hence, the VSL for the target country (South Korea) considered the differences in the gross national income per capita of South Korea and the United States in the year 2020 [45]. In the U.S., the EPA recommends $7.4 million as the value of a statistical life and an income elasticity factor of 0.7 [46]. Second, the value of a statistical life year (VSLY) is calculated using Equation (10) [44]. The average age of construction workers was assumed to be 45 years. Third, based on the VSLY and the added number of DALY of workers with health damage, the cost (WTP) is calculated (Equation (11)).

$$VS{L}_{target}=VS{L}_{base}\times {(GNI per capit{a}_{target}/GNI per capit{a}_{base})}^{elasticity}$$

(9)

$$VSL{Y}_{target}=\frac{VS{L}_{target}\times r}{1-{(1+r)}^{-y}}$$

(10)

$$WTP=U_i\times VSL{Y}_{target}$$

(11)

where VSL_target is the value of a statistical life for the target country ($), VSL_base is the base VSL for the reference country ($), GNI per capita_target is the gross national income per capita for the target country ($), GNI per capita_base is the gross national income per capita for the reference country ($), elasticity is the income elasticity factor, VSLY_target is the value of a statistical life year for the target country ($), r is the discount rate (4%) [21], y is the remaining years of life (a), and WTP is the willingness to pay ($).

3.4. Description of Case Study

The case building analyzed in this study was a parking lot building located in Seoul, South Korea. The parking lot building has a building floor area of 8156.43 m². The parking lot building was chosen as a case study because there are numerous parking lot building projects being completed in Seoul as a result of the city’s growing automotive population, making it crucial to evaluate the environmental effects of these projects. Secondly, construction revenue in Seoul makes up approximately 11.4% of the total in South Korea, making Seoul the second largest contributor after Gyeonggi province [47].

Table 6. Characteristics of the case study.

Construction Work Type	Number of Workers	Exposed Duration (Days)
Temporary work	2	60
Earthwork	17	90
Reinforced concrete work	12	90
Steel and metal work	5	60
Structural work	12	150
Masonry work	10	60
Pavement work	6	60
Demolition work	8	60

shows the various characteristics of the project, such as duration and the number of workers involved in each construction work type as defined in RSMeans [48].

Table 7. Construction equipment of various types used for various types of work.

Construction Work Type	Construction Equipment	Related Material	Unit	Quantity
Temporary work	Truck crane	Temporary container office	ea	1.00
		The number of tower crane	ea	1.00
Earthwork	Backhoe	Volume of soil dredged	m3	5427.30
		Soil piling	m3	880.40
		Digging	m3	1651.80
		Soil loading	m3	6042.30
	Excavator	Backfilling	m3	329.20
	Compactor	Soil compaction	m3	329.20
	Breaker	Bedrock blasted	m3	2614.00
	Roller	Backfilling	m3	329.20
Reinforced concrete work	Concrete pump car	Volume of concrete	m3	4896.00
	Tower crane	Steel bar	ton	513.03
Steel and metal work	Tower crane	Steel frame	ton	5.79
		Metal panel	ton	18.80
		Roof drain and steel grating	ea	24.00
Structural work	Concrete pump car	Unsupported concrete pouring	m3	4.00
		Reinforced concrete pouring	m3	39.20
	Truck crane	Reinforced fabrication	ton	3.60
	Backhoe	Laying of rubble	m3	17.10
Masonry work	Mortar mixer	Mortar	m3	116.57
	Mortar pump	Mortar	m3	116.57
	Block cutting machine	Hollow concrete block	ea	2700.00
		Concrete brick	ea	137,000.00
Pavement work	Compactor	Ascon	m3	78.40
	Roller	Road mixed aggregate	m3	48.80
Demolition work	Breaker	Concrete breaking	m3	810.80
	Backhoe	Waste loading	m3	810.80

Note: The ea unit means each.

defines the various construction equipment used in each construction work type, related materials, and their quantity.

4. Results and Discussion

4.1. Dust Emission Results for Various Construction Work Types

Table 8. Dust emissions caused by the energy used by construction equipment.

Construction Work Type	Dust Emission (kg)
Temporary work	0.023
Earthwork	0.959
Reinforced concrete work	0.605
Steel and metal work	0.032
Structural work	0.044
Masonry work	0.556
Pavement work	0.002
Demolition work	0.202

presents the dust emission results from the energy used by the construction equipment during different construction work types. The total dust emission for the parking lot building case study was 2.421 kg. For the dust emission during each work type, earthwork emitted the highest emission with 0.959 kg of dust emission. This is because, during the earthwork, a lot of construction machinery is used compared to other work types and the quantity of work done in this case study is greater compared to other work types [20,49].

Figure 2 shows the total dust concentration for the various construction work types considering the dust emission from the energy used by the construction equipment, dust in the atmosphere, and dust produced during the various construction activities. The results indicated that earthwork ranked first, with a dust concentration of 3.85 × 10³ µg/m³. During earthwork construction, most dust is generated since it involves excavating [20]. Earthwork was followed by masonry work, structural work, steel and metal work, demolition work, pavement work, reinforced concrete work, and temporary work, with dust concentrations of 3.81 × 10³ µg/m³, 2.17 × 10³ µg/m³, 1.46 × 10³ µg/m³, 1.10 × 10³ µg/m³, 6.78 × 10² µg/m³, 3.68 × 10² µg/m³, and 2.18 × 10² µg/m³ respectively.

4.2. Results of the Health Impact Assessment

The results of the added number of patients or workers with health damage caused by dust are presented in

Table 9. Increased number of patients/workers with health damage.

	Health Damage (Case/a)
Construction Work Type	COPD	Acute Respiratory Infections	Pneumoconiosis
Temporary Work	3.33 × 10−6	3.49 × 10−2	4.27 × 10−6
Earthwork	5.00 × 10−4	5.25	6.41 × 10−4
Reinforced Concrete Work	3.37 × 10−5	3.54 × 10−1	4.33 × 10−5
Steel and Metal Work	5.57 × 10−5	5.85 × 10−1	7.15 × 10−5
Structural Work	1.99 × 10−4	2.09	2.55 × 10−4
Masonry Work	2.91 × 10−4	3.05	3.73 × 10−4
Pavement work	3.11 × 10−5	3.26 × 10−1	3.99 × 10−5
Demolition Work	6.72 × 10−5	7.05 × 10−1	8.62 × 10−5

. The added number of patients/workers with COPD, acute respiratory infections, and pneumoconiosis ranged from 3.33 × 10⁻⁶ to 5.00 × 10⁻⁴ case/a, 3.49 × 10⁻² to 5.25 × 10 case/a, and 4.27 × 10⁻⁶ to 6.41 × 10⁻⁴ case/a, respectively. Earthwork had the greatest number of patients or workers with health damage, while temporary work had the least.

In terms of the damage assessment,

Table 10. DALY for health damage.

Type of Health Damage	YLL * (a/Case)	YLD (a/Case)	DALY (a/Case)
COPD	11.02	3	14.02
Acute respiratory infections		0.00012	0.00012
Pneumoconiosis	20	3.9	23.9

* YLL from [41].

presents the DALY for the health damage. YLD was only considered for acute respiratory infections because it has a low health impact and has the potential to cause adverse health conditions that do not result in human mortality [39]. The added number of DALY of workers with health damage caused by dust is presented in Figure 3. It was found that the added number of DALY of workers with COPD ranged from 4.67 × 10⁻⁵ to 7.00 × 10⁻³ a. For acute respiratory infections, the added number of DALY of workers ranged from 4.19 × 10⁻⁶ to 6.30 × 10⁻⁴ a. Furthermore, for pneumoconiosis, the added number of DALY of workers ranged from 1.02 × 10⁻⁴ to 1.53 × 10⁻² a. In all three health damage scenarios, earthwork workers had the highest added number of DALY.

4.3. Results of the Economic Valuation

Table 11. The economic cost of health damage.

	WTP ($)
Construction Work Type	COPD	Acute Respiratory Infections	Pneumoconiosis
Temporary Work	1.18 × 10	1.06	2.58 × 10
Earthwork	1.77 × 103	1.59 × 102	3.86 × 103
Reinforced Concrete Work	1.19 × 102	1.07 × 10	2.60 × 102
Steel and Metal Work	1.97 × 102	1.77 × 10	4.32 × 102
Structural Work	7.05 × 102	6.31 × 10	1.54 × 103
Masonry Work	1.03 × 103	9.24 × 10	2.25 × 103
Pavement work	1.10 × 102	9.88	2.40 × 102
Demolition Work	2.38 × 102	2.14 × 10	5.20 × 102

and Figure 4 present the economic costs of the health damage caused by dust. The total WTP for this study was $13,691.00. The results of the economic cost for COPD, acute respiratory infections, and pneumoconiosis ranged from $11.80 to $1770.00, $1.06 to $159.00, and $25.80 to $3860.00, respectively. As mentioned in Section 4.2, acute respiratory infections do not result in mortality, so they have the lowest economic cost. In terms of the construction work type, the economic cost for earthwork was $5790.00, which was the highest among all the work types.

4.4. Discussion

There is a lack of evaluation of the impact of dust on workers, taking into account various factors of dust exposure. Therefore, this study suggests a methodology for evaluating the impact of dust on construction workers, considering three different factors by which construction workers are exposed to dust. In addition, the results of this study make a practical contribution by making the management of health-related issues on construction sites easier. For example, due to the limitation of personal protective equipment (hereafter PPE) on the construction site, its appropriate allocation is very important. Considering work type, air pollution, and construction machinery, the PPE can be allocated appropriately considering the level of dust on the construction site.

Emissions from the energy used by construction equipment during the construction phase are not considered important since they are smaller compared to other phases in a building’s life cycle [16]. Thus, this accounts for the low dust emission results from the energy used by construction equipment in this study. Hence, this study added other factors such as dust in the atmosphere (since South Korea has poor air quality [33]) and dust generated during construction activities.

Earthwork had the highest dust emission due to the following reasons: (i) earthwork entails excavating material, stockpiling, haulage, tipping, landscaping, and leveling the site, all of which generate a significant amount of dust [50], and (ii) during the earthwork stage, many construction machines that generate dust are used.

In terms of economic valuation, a study conducted by Luo et al. [20], which considered the dust produced during earthwork construction, produced an economic cost of $2490.11, while this study considered three factors, that is, dust emission from the energy used by the construction equipment, dust in the atmosphere, and dust produced during earthwork construction, and calculated an economic cost of $5790.00.

5. Conclusions

This study examined the total dust exposure of construction workers, taking into account dust emissions from the energy used by construction equipment, dust in the atmosphere, and dust produced during construction activities. The health impact assessment of dust was also analyzed using DALY and WTP. The research employed the following process: (1) scope and selection of case study; (2) definition of dust exposure to workers; and (3) health impact assessment. First, eight construction work types were selected for a parking lot building project. Second, the dust that workers are exposed to was categorized into three factors: (1) dust emission from the energy used by the construction equipment; (2) dust in the atmosphere; and (3) dust produced during the various construction activities. Third, the health impact of dust was assessed.

The results of the study are as follows: First, the results of dust emission for different construction work types showed that earthwork had the highest dust concentration of 3.85 × 10³ µg/m³. In terms of dust emission from the energy used by construction equipment, earthwork had 0.959 kg of dust, which was the highest of all work types. Second, the results of the added number of DALY of workers showed that the total added number of DALY of workers was 0.0542a. Third, the results of the economic valuation of health impacts showed a total cost of $13,691.00.

The contributions of this study are as follows: First, it is believed that the consideration of the three factors of dust would allow an accurate assessment of the amount of dust workers are exposed to during different construction work types. Second, the results from this study could be used as basic data for establishing environmental policies.

However, this study has the following limitations: First, there was no previous research that quantified the value of a statistical life (VSL) in South Korea. As a result, the VSL for South Korea was determined by comparing the US and South Korea’s gross national income per capita. Second, this study only assessed a specific part of construction, that is, parking lot construction, which is small compared to assessing a whole residential building or commercial building with a parking lot. Third, the use of dust control measures was not considered in this study. Therefore, in further research, these limitations will be addressed.