As the example of the CSX employee shows, one consequence of technology in the workplace is the amount of additional work it can create for IHs. Investigating a workers’ claim takes time and energy, and even in cases where a claim isn’t filed, IHs might find themselves competing for workers’ trust. Imagine a situation where an employee’s wearable says that she is exposed to ten parts per million of carbon monoxide, and the IH’s monitor detects zero parts per million. Convincing the employee that her device isn’t necessarily telling her the whole truth could be difficult, especially in an age where people use their phones for all sorts of tasks such as locking their cars, monitoring their home security, finding lost keys, and turning appliances on or off. “There’s going to be disparities in the results between [professional equipment and consumer devices],” Bullock says. “So I think it’s going to be key to be able to explain that to a layperson in a way that they can understand and not think that we’re being dishonest.” Bullock also worries about the potential for lawsuits. In most industries, the workers’ compensation system serves as a general bar to litigation from employees alleging injury against their employer. (This is not the case for railroads, which are covered by the Federal Employers Liability Act, a law that allows workers to sue their employers directly.) But even for employers covered by workers’ comp, communities could bring civil suits based on measurements obtained by laypeople using air monitors near a facility. According to Neil Feldscher, a lawyer and industrial hygienist who is a member of AIHA’s Legal Issues Committee, a company facing such a lawsuit would probably rely on expert witness testimony to argue that a plaintiff’s evidence doesn’t represent the type of evidence routinely used by IH professionals—and to present the company’s own data. Ultimately, Feldscher says, a company that has a good IH program is well prepared to defend itself. “I think the best defense is essentially a good offense, which is, ‘I’ve got accurate data from my facility with good IHs using good machines and good methods,’” Feldscher says. But trials, too, cost time and money, and distract IHs from the ultimate goal of protecting workers, the community, and the environment. How can IHs get ahead of the tech tide? The first step, as Bullock alluded to, is to educate workers about the differences between professional equipment and the technology in their pockets or around their wrists. He suggests using whatever communication tools IHs have at their disposal—training sessions, a company newsletter, even facility-wide TV—to explain the capabilities of properly maintained IH monitors and to begin discussions about the limitations of widely available technology for measurement of occupational exposures. Rollins emphasizes that part of educating workers is encouraging them to express their concerns. “The mantra I’ve had for decades where I’ve worked [is], if people are concerned about something, we will evaluate it,” he says. “There’s no penalty for asking questions.” Culver suggests that IHs consider going a step further and figuring out how to use workers and their technologies as a first line of defense against occupational exposures. The medical and healthcare fields offer a useful analogy, he says. Medical professionals, realizing that they can’t monitor patients all the time, provide them with simple take-home instruments such as devices for measuring blood pressure or insulin. Even the common household thermometer can be seen as a device for conducting a personal form of citizen science. The analogy isn’t perfect: as Rollins points out, take-home medical instruments have to be approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Nothing like this regulatory vetting exists for, say, the traceability and calibration of consumer devices for measuring VOCs and their companion apps. Still, the medical profession has taught patients to participate in their own care through use of simple devices that provide ballpark indications of health. And most people know to call a doctor once their measurements are outside certain parameters. “Do the people at home who are taking the measurement think that they’re professionals now?” Culver asks. “Are they under the illusion that they’re now the doctor? No. They recognize once things are out of normal that they need to reach out and get professional help.” Could a wearable device someday serve the same purpose for industrial hygienists that thermometers serve for doctors? Culver isn’t sure, but he thinks that such a development would be a boon for the profession. In his view, IHs have a choice: either they enlist the help of workers and their technologies, or they wall themselves off by declaring that only professionals using specialized equipment can participate in the monitoring of workplace exposures. “The challenge is educating people on the difference between a monitor and a real measurement instrument, one that is actually measuring something reliable with precision and accuracy, what appropriate use cases are, etcetera,” Culver says. “Do you set up a dichotomy where you’re basically challenging [workers] that they’re not qualified? Or do you engage them and train them and make them your partners to achieve something?”

AIHA Guideline Foundation: “The Future of Sensors: Protecting Worker Health through Sensor Technologies” (, April 2016).

“” (December 2009).

Global Community Monitor: “Argentine/Turner Diesel Exhaust Air Pollution Monitoring Final Report” (June 2015).

Smithsonian.com: “” (March 2015).