4.4 Article

Risk Assessment for Metalworking Fluids and Respiratory Outcomes

期刊

SAFETY AND HEALTH AT WORK
卷 10, 期 4, 页码 428-436

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.shaw.2019.09.001

关键词

Benchmark dose; Hypersensitivity pneumonitis; Metalworking fluids; Occupational asthma; Survivor effect

资金

  1. US government (CDC/NIOSH)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Metalworking fluids (MWFs) are mixtures with inhalation exposures as mists, dusts, and vapors, and dermal exposure in the dispersed and bulk liquid phase. A quantitative risk assessment was performed for exposure to MWF and respiratory disease. Methods: Risks associated with MWF were derived from published studies and NIOSH Health Hazard Evaluations, and lifetime risks were calculated. The outcomes analyzed included adult onset asthma, hypersensitivity pneumonitis, pulmonary function impairment, and reported symptoms. Incidence rates were compiled or estimated, and annual proportional loss of respiratory capacity was derived from cross-sectional assessments. Results: A strong healthy worker survivor effect was present. New-onset asthma and hypersensitivity pneumonitis, at 0.1 mg/m(3) MWF under continuous outbreak conditions, had a lifetime risk of 45%; if the associated microbiological conditions occur with only 5% prevalence, then the lifetime risk would be about 3%. At 0.1 mg/m(3), the estimate of excess lifetime risk of attributable pulmonary impairment was 0.25%, which may have been underestimated by a factor of 5 or more by a strong healthy worker survivor effect. The symptom prevalence associated with respiratory impairment at 0.1 mg/m(3 )MWF was estimated to be 5% (published studies) and 21% (Health Hazard Evaluations). Conclusion: Significant risks of impairment and chronic disease occurred at 0.1 mg/m(3) for MWFs in use mostly before 2000. Evolving MWFs contain new ingredients with uncharacterized long-term hazards. (C) 2019 Occupational Safety and Health Research Institute, Published by Elsevier Korea LLC.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据